Why electricity flows

Originally posted by Mary Rose
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:

Too late to edit: Prof. Bjerknes with one "s."

(I came back to look at my post because I'm reading Challenging Modern Physics by Al Kelly. In Chapter 12 "Comments and Conclusions" he recommends for those interested in further reading five books, one of which is Albert Einstein the Incorrigible Plagiarist by Bjerknes. Christopher Jon Bjerknes, that is. Hmmmm, I wonder if he's a descendant of Prof. Bjerknes.)

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.

I havent read the tesla paper yet... but i thought it had to do with electrical energy dispersing through a gaseous medium such as the atmosphere,,( related to his tesla coil atmospheric transferal of energy ideas),, which is why one of the quotes posted refereed to him imagining this dispersion of electricity similar to that of sound waves.. i believe you stated this is an incorrect way to view the dispersion of electricity and I believe you are most likeley right in that statement... so i asked what is the proper way to view how electricity disperses through a gaseus medium if not transferring itself to the gaseous molecules getting weaker and weaker as sound waves do..

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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.

edit on 13-11-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

are quantum mechanics effected/influenced by the forces of the massive/macro systems they reside in or near?

pretty much do they behave differently when studied interacting on earth or in a lab.. then they would in intergalactic space?

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.

I havent read the tesla paper yet... but i thought it had to do with electrical energy dispersing through a gaseous medium such as the atmosphere,,( related to his tesla coil atmospheric transferal of energy ideas),, which is why one of the quotes posted refereed to him imagining this dispersion of electricity similar to that of sound waves.. i believe you stated this is an incorrect way to view the dispersion of electricity and I believe you are most likeley right in that statement... so i asked what is the proper way to view how electricity disperses through a gaseus medium if not transferring itself to the gaseous molecules getting weaker and weaker as sound waves do..

I think I provided a more or less adequate list. In your follow up, you mention "transfer itself". This is a bit iffy. What does "transfer" is? Look up corona discharge. There is in fact charge flowing out of the wire.

From Challenging Modern Physics by Al Kelly, published by BrownWalker Press, 2005, Chapter 12 "Comments and Conclusions," under "Random Thoughts,":

For those interested in further reading, I recommend the following books:

1. Newton versus Einstein by Graneau and Graneau. This book shows that there is a force acting on the elements of a current-carrying conductor in the direction of the current flow that tends to break the conductor. Graneau and Graneau have shown this through many experiments. It conforms to Ampere's original experiments but not to accepted electromagnetic theory.

Originally posted by StareDad
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.

im no mod,, but i dont see the problem,,, you didnt even have to say this,,, you could have just quoted your friend....

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.

I havent read the tesla paper yet... but i thought it had to do with electrical energy dispersing through a gaseous medium such as the atmosphere,,( related to his tesla coil atmospheric transferal of energy ideas),, which is why one of the quotes posted refereed to him imagining this dispersion of electricity similar to that of sound waves.. i believe you stated this is an incorrect way to view the dispersion of electricity and I believe you are most likeley right in that statement... so i asked what is the proper way to view how electricity disperses through a gaseus medium if not transferring itself to the gaseous molecules getting weaker and weaker as sound waves do..

I think I provided a more or less adequate list. In your follow up, you mention "transfer itself". This is a bit iffy. What does "transfer" is? Look up corona discharge. There is in fact charge flowing out of the wire.

ok thanks i see now

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The explanation i have provided here of electricity is not a conventional text book description. This is my attempt to explain it in a way that the layman who doesnt have any background on electricty or voltage can understand. If you think you or your engineeri friend want to do a layman explanation go ahead im not stopping you. So My critic until you or your engineer friend do that i will laugh my ass off when reading your trivial Jabs.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


And I have written a separate thread on magnetsim. Its in my profile thread list and you can it can be found easily in Ats.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I want to point out at this point to anyone read this far that is a discussion directed at people why know nothing about how it works of electricity. The discussion is meant to promote people to think and start questioning. Naturally if the are curious enough andthey want a more rigouress explanation they will do more research on the internet or read a book on the subject. If just one person is motivated to that from this thread then it was worth it.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

So My critic until you or your engineer friend do that i will laugh my ass off when reading your trivial Jabs.

What a way to respond to a "thank you" and a compliment.

Originally posted by gmonundercover
reply to post by Bedlam

 

You seem to be very adroit at twisting words and meanings to suit your own purposes. I'll have none of it.

Bedlam's understanding of science and its terminology is correct.

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
So My critic until you or your engineer friend do that i will laugh my ass off when reading your trivial Jabs.

I was defending your layman explanation when others were poking at it.

So here's a jab for you...your reading comprehension is poor.

Originally posted by jonnywhite

Einstein had a poor grasp of QM and wanted to extend his classical ideas into that realm. But as we can see, he failed miserably and battled to his last days to reconcile with it.

Einstein did not have a poor grasp of quantum mechanics! He had a sufficiently good grasp of it to find conceptual issues which took decades to resolve (if they even are).

The EPR paradox is meant to illustrate problems with the Copenhagen intrerpretation. I happen to agree with Einstein, it is nonsensical mumbo jumbo conceptually (though as a practical calculational tool for most experimentally relevant situations it's a good enough approximation as long as you don't think too hard).

He was proposing that actual new physics could be discoverable and that physics could resolve problems reconciling quantum mechanics with classical relativity, both of which were highly quantitatively predictive in their own field. This is by no means something idiotic or a sign of mental illness (compared to Tesla's later years, where he showed no understanding of modern physics), but sophisticated hypothesizing from a great physicist.

The specific proposal that Einstein put forth was not experimentally disconfirmed until years after his death (decades after first being raised), and surely had he lived he would modify his position in light of experimental evidence as he always did.

The fact that there are multiple "interpretations of quantum mechanics" and that this is recognized as a difficult and important problem is in large measure because of Einstein's provocations.

en.wikipedia.org...

Einstein being a whiz at dynamics and statistical mechanics would have likely been far more satisfied with decoherence theory, which is a contemporary explanation plato.stanford.edu...
of effects which is more satisfying compared to what Bohr et al pushed back then.

Originally posted by mbkennel
The EPR paradox is meant to illustrate problems with the Copenhagen intrerpretation. I happen to agree with Einstein, it is nonsensical mumbo jumbo conceptually (though as a practical calculational tool for most experimentally relevant situations it's a good enough approximation as long as you don't think too hard).

While I'm still wondering what this sub-thread doing in the "electricity" thread (well, due to pollution coming from the woo-woos extolling Tesla and Bearden, in all likelihood), I need to say this:

If it works for "most relevant situations" and supposedly doesn't work in others, you (since you seem so categorical) should be able to find the intermediate case, where quantum mechanics (in whatever interpretation you choose to address) starts to break and this is measurable. Or maybe you can mention some other observable.

You see, you used the word "approximation". That by necessity means that at some limit it breaks. And you must be able to point towards this limit at the very least.

It's relatively well understood how it flows, but the explanations as to why it flows are quite a bit fewer and not quite as convincing.

I personally don't think you can look at any electromagnetic activity and ignore the obvious multi-dimensionality of it. So what you see (or don't see, actually) is energy re-aligning their little ice cream cone shaped vortexes to a dimension we can't otherwise detect, and "falling sideways" toward it.

Originally posted by Blue Shift
It's relatively well understood how it flows, but the explanations as to why it flows are quite a bit fewer and not quite as convincing.

You lost me here. There is a field, and the prime property of an electric charge is that it will experience force when a field is present. The force will cause a change in momentum. What's there to be convinced about???

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Blue Shift
It's relatively well understood how it flows, but the explanations as to why it flows are quite a bit fewer and not quite as convincing.

You lost me here. There is a field, and the prime property of an electric charge is that it will experience force when a field is present. The force will cause a change in momentum. What's there to be convinced about???

what is an electric charge? what is the difference between positive and negative electric charge?
what is a field?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
are quantum mechanics effected/influenced by the forces of the massive/macro systems they reside in or near?

Good question. I'm not sure we will have a full answer to that until we have a quantum theory of gravity, which we are still working on but don't have yet. It's a theoretical gap.

Quantum gravity

Quantum gravity (QG) is the field of theoretical physics which attempts to develop scientific models that unify quantum mechanics (describing three of the four known fundamental interactions) with general relativity (describing the fourth, gravity). It is hoped that development of such a theory would unify all fundamental interactions into a single mathematical framework and describe all known observable interactions in the universe, at both subatomic and cosmological scales.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Blue Shift
It's relatively well understood how it flows, but the explanations as to why it flows are quite a bit fewer and not quite as convincing.

You lost me here. There is a field, and the prime property of an electric charge is that it will experience force when a field is present. The force will cause a change in momentum. What's there to be convinced about???

what is an electric charge? what is the difference between positive and negative electric charge?
what is a field?

This gives a good intuitive understanding.

Feynman Lectures V2