The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Do conductors and insulators fit with the nice presentation from books?  (Read 13280 times)

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Conductors and insulators  experiments

The behavior of a charged object is dependent on its composition, more precisely, if itís made by a conductive or a nonconductive material.

Conductors are materials which permit electrons (or ions in case of solutions) to flow freely in spatial structure of considered material. An object made of a conducting material will permit charge to be spread over the entire surface of the object as result of electrons movement. When such charged conductor is touched to another conductive material, the charge is transferred in order to cover the entire conductive surface.

Insulators are materials which impede the free flow of electrons through the spatial structure of considered material. If charge is transferred to an insulator at a given location, the excess charge will remain at the initial location of charging.

Insulators serve from practical point of view as mantle of protection for conductor materials.

Some conductor: metals, aqueous solutions of salts (i.e., ionic compounds dissolved in water), graphite, water and the human body.

Some insulators:  plastics, Styrofoam, (dry) paper, rubber, glass and dry air

Experimental part

Two materials - paper and polyethylene - are tested. The test consists in a comparison between (actual) electrostatic and electric property of these materials.

In this purpose a simple electrostatic circuit (fig.1) is used for observing the charge movement through material.




Figure 1. Electrostatic circuit for conductivity test

 

The circuit is very simple and consist in a foil of tested material (paper or polyethylene) connected to an electroscope plate. A charged material is put in contact with tested foil, avoiding making the contact near the electroscope plate.



Figure 1-bis The experimental electrostatic circuit

 

In case of these materials (paper and polyethylene), even the length of the strip is more then 10 cm,  when the charged body is put in contact with paper, the electroscope foils push away from each other  as is presented in fig. 2.


Figure 2. Charge movement along polyethylene foil

 

In a second step the plate of the electroscope is gloved with these materials and the experiment is repeated. Again, at the contact of charged body with tested material, the electroscope foils push away from each other as is presented in photo 3.



Figure 3. Charge movement through double polyethylene foil

 

It seems that is not a difficult task for electric charges to move, both, at the surface level or (possible) in depth, through these materials.

Despite both materials are classified as insulators, the experiment proves the contrary. A polyethylene foil and a paper foil does not impede to a charge to be transferred through it.

In order to see the comportment of these materials in case of electric current a simple device in fig. 4 is used.  There are two identical and very simple circuits, made from a battery (1,5 V), an ammeter and optionally a resistor. A small portion of conductor in every circuit is not insulated and between these portions of conductors, the same strips of paper and polyethylene used in the previous experiment are successively inserted.



Figure 4 Device for electric conductivity test

 

When only one circuit is working, in left circuit, a short circuit intensity of 2.73 A and respectively 2,71 A in right circuit are measured as presented in fig. 4 and 5



Figure 4. Left circuit short-circuit intensity



Figure 5. Right circuit short-circuit intensity

 

The direction of electric currents are opposite in these circuits.

When the both circuits are working simultaneously (fig 6) the electric currents through both circuits are quite the same;  2.76 A in left circuit and 2.61 A in right circuit. The small difference registered is due to the imperfect contacts performed. 



Figure 6. Counter current simoultaneously through both circuits

It seems that strips of studied materials (paper and polyethylene) act as insulators and prevent the electric current to pass through materials from a conductor to another.

But in this case somewhere must be an error Ö. because if we admit the actual definition of electric current as correct,  in the second experiment it should appear a decreasing of short-circuit current due to a transfer of charge between conductors through the studied materials. It is known from experiments that two currents of opposite directions cancel one another.

This is not a singular strange case in actual electrodynamics. For example dry air is an insulator for DC and AC currents. In the same time dry air is a conductor for electromagnetic waves Ö. which are considered AC currents in actual physics. How is possible to exist an entire community of physicists and none was able to see these striking inadvertencies?

The explanation for the above presented experiments, in proposed theory is very simple. A charge movement is not equivalent with an electric current or an electromagnetic wave. As consequence the classification of materials must be remade for every category in a separate way. A material which is conductor for a charge transfer can be insulator for an electric current without any incompatibility; same situation in case of electric current and an electromagnetic wave comparison
« Last Edit: 20/10/2008 08:56:53 by sorincosofret »


 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
sorincosofret you are groping in the dark like the eearly pioneers of electricity.  Everything you describe is perfectly normal if you understood properly what is happening and the limitations of your experimental procedures.  I recommend that you take a good course in basic electricity and electrostatics (which is very different from normal electrical circuits and not often tauht properly these days)

I will not spend the time going into a great detail about the many errors and misunderstandings in your experiments presented in this and other topics but will point out one important feature of your first electrostatic demonstration.

You are clearly not familiar with the effect known a "elsctrostatic induction" (google this to get a fuller explanation) where the presence of a charge on an insulator induces the opposite charge on another body nearby so your insulating strip does not have to conduct to produce the effect that you observe.
« Last Edit: 17/10/2008 10:29:48 by Soul Surfer »
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
There are some persons with a imagination greater then normal. They imagine to be some ,,hero of physics " only because they makes comments without sense. They gained the statute of ,,hero ' here only with this kind of comments. I haven't seen your comments on the electrolytic cells posts or maybe you are still learning to count up to four. I think it's better for the forum to exists a coefficient of correlation between the number of stupid comments-answers and his/her evaluation. It is a suggestion, because I'm not really interested in the structure and management of this forum.
Coming back to the experiment, anyone can see that the phenomena implied is conduction and not induction.
In order to be more detailed (I have received my new VDG machine ) the experiment described in fig A is made. As is seen a VDG device is connected with a ammeter through a polyethylene strip. The length of the strip is more then 15 cm. In ,,shortcircuit" the VDG give me a ,,current" of 2.5 micro A.


Fig A Scheme of experiment
Using the strip the current is about 1 micro A as is seen in fig. B.


 Figure B. Experimental arrangement

Before giving advice to other is better to test their knowledge in the field. Have you ever asked yourself what is the mechanism of charge transfer from a insulator to another insulator (conductor)?
If a insulator is charged and the charge does not have the possibility to move (as actual physics admit), at a contact with another material, only a very small quantity of charge must be transfered; it will be transfered only the quantity existent on the contact surface. Such small quantity is not enough to move the electroscope foils (first experiment) and to explain the ,,electric current" in second experiment.
In short time a new experiment using a CRT tube instead of VDG  device will be attached.
 
« Last Edit: 18/10/2008 05:22:14 by sorincosofret »
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
The third experiment

In order to have a comparative idea about charge conductibility and current conductibility (as will be see they are different concepts even for non-physicist), the same circuit is used as in fig. 1.

 

Figure 1.

The comportment of studied material in presence of an electric current was already detailed in the above text, so is not the case to insist again.
The electrostatic circuit is a little bit different regarding the electron circulation. In this case the electrons have the possibility to circulate from VDG through conductor, through studied material and second conductor and after that at a null point ( heating installation). In case of a positive result, the ,, intensity" of this current is measured with an ammeter connected between studied material and null point.
Based on the experiment above presented, and with actual definition of electric current, we should expect to a null result (polyethylene foil is an insulator for electric current).
But, the reality is a little bit different as it can be seen in the fig. 2. A ,,current" of 2 microamp are circulating through circuit.

 

Figure 2

If only the ammeter is connected to the VDG device and to the null point a current (short-circuit) of about 2.5 microA is measured.



How is possible in case of a charge produced by a VDG device to have a comportment of polyethylene as conductor (the modification of intensity can be attributed to a resistance of the material) and in case of a charge produced by a chemical reaction (real electric current) the strip is a insulator.
If the electric current is a charge displacement, when the foil is inserted between non insulated conductors, and taking into account the sens of the electric currents, it should exists a drastically modification of electric currents in circuit. Practically the opposite currents should annihilate one to another.
I leave again the practice of the experiment (first) and the interpretation to actual elites of physics.
In proposed theory there are not much things to be explained. Electric currents are different on charge displacement even in some cases an charge displ;acement can overlap as effect to an electric current.
« Last Edit: 18/10/2008 10:51:15 by sorincosofret »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
No insulator is perfect.
At a high enough potential there will be a measurable current in a circuit such as you have described (though some of the current may be traveling through the air rather than the polythene).

So what?
This has no prospect of being "heroic".
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
There is no high potential in the experiment conditions.
The high potential exists only when the charge accumulate on the metallic sphere.
When there is a resistence or a shortcircuit, the charge is moving and the potential is lower then you believe.
Of course we can admit that electrons pass through air. Anyone can repeat the experiment with a distance between VDG and the rest of circuit greater then 10 cm. In this case the same effect must be obtained.
We can imagine also a deformation of  the peacetime coordinates.
The physics is becoming a space of science fiction ....
But the next posts will reveal another absurdities of modern physics...
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Sorin in one of your other recent posts you have failed to measure the current properly. Perhaps you have done so here.
Anyway, if you are not generating a high potenetial why are you using a VdeG?
Also you saying
"We can imagine also a deformation of  the peacetime coordinates.
The physics is becoming a space of science fiction ....
But the next posts will reveal another absurdities of modern physics..."
Sugests that ou simply don't understand what you are doing.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Sorin in one of your other recent posts you have failed to measure the current properly. Perhaps you have done so here.

Yes it's true. The post is recent but the experiment is old. You must understand something: the bulk of the present theory (concepts and experiments) was made about 20 years ago. At that time my income was about 200 euro monthly. At that time in Romania I haven't seen an microammeter for buying and in any case, even I should have seen, I could not permit one.
So the experiments were made using a modified analog ammeter in a trial to catch the microamp currents. Probably the instrument was not sensible enough to the final destination. Probably the VDG was not enough powerful to give me a detectable current.
It is a historical fact and this error is still in the actual version of atomic structure and for the moment I have not time to revise the book. Of course the impact of presented experiments on the structure of atom are (from my point of view) without relevancy. There are a lot of other correct phenomena in the book and a reader should not judge a entire theory after a error in a specific field.
The error is maintained even on the site (at the atomic structure) from the same historical perspective, with mention of refinement of experiments in the electricity book.
Now, my income is completely different. Now I can buy a microammeter with few euro and of course all old experiments are revised.
But again, if I look back, this error help me to develop this theory. The concept of difference between electric charge displacement and electric current is based on the theoretical and experimental consideration developed in the study of galvanic elements (Daniel cell and concentration cell).
Why help me this error?
Because a detection of current at that stage of theory development, could embarrass me enough and stop me for further works. In this case, an experiment gave me right and another kind of experiment in the same filed, told me I'm wrong.
Now when the theory is quite good developed as fundamnets is a piece of cake to see why a charge dispalcement can appear as a electric current, and to find other kind of experiment which differentiate them. An this was done.

Anyway, if you are not generating a high potential why are you using a VdeG?

I used two sources of electrons ( a electron gun and a VDG device) in order to be sure about my conclusions. Because someone can interpret  that electrons coming from electron guns loose they energy in the impact with screen and there is no enough energy to produce the electrolysis.

 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
What's the point of posting a theory based on 20 year old bad measurements?
Particularly when it's so clearly wrong?
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
The theory is not wrong as you believe.
Of course, I've seen on the internet people who still believe that the Earth is flat. It is their oppinion. It is your oppinion to believe what you want.
It is more problematic that people like you are in the  key position and they have the right of decision.
Therefore it is possible to take a little bit time for the theory to be accepted. But I have time, and I enjoy the pleasure to be unknown; after that it will be quite impossible to make a movement without having paparazzi after me.
In the same time, if the actual elites of physics spends billions of Eur every years, without a simple analysis, if this consume is useful or not, for me it means there are money for throwing on the window.
Therefore if the theory will be accepted in 2010 or 2020, the official body (organisation , state , institute etc) will pay my revenue from 2000.
I post these messages maybe someone from elites is so clever to put a student to verify this theory, and to not be accused that my theory was hidden and none was able to find it. Therefore I support your and other stupid comments, instead of sending you to a course of schoolboy physics.
You can imagine that intellectual rights for the theory are not of level of few milions of Eur....if in every year billions are spent on nothing.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Why do you guys bother to encourage sorin by conversing in this limbo world?
You get cross with him but he keeps going because you keep answering him.
He obviously loves doing his experiments. Let him get on with it. He won't change, will he?
At least the Internet keeps him at arm's length. . . .
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
I take it you saw my comment elsewhere about clearing next door's cat's "debris" from the lawn.
If someone doesn't clear up the place ends up full of crap.
Unfortunately, the 'net doesn't keep him at arms length- it lets him get all over the place and he might confuse people who ae interested in real science.
I have said before that this site should have a "dustbin" for threads like this.
 

lyner

  • Guest
But if you keep answering him, the topic stays near the top. Unanswered, it will gravitate to where it deserves to be.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Centaur,
Before you will retire (as I've seen you are close) I think,  you will observe that you have learned for a entire life a theory of illusions.
I don't think it will be more bitter taste for your retirement. To spend a entire life teaching about a false theory, and when a more valuable theory appear to be incapable to recognise it. The routine becomes sometimes the second nature.
I'm not upset if none will make comments on my posts. I'm not upset if an official body take in consideration my writings. I made what is necessary in order to have visibility for the theory.
If Europe is more reticent, as I observed from the site visitors, the theory is appreciated in US network of univeristies. There will be a small number of time -looser interested in experiment repeating and they will be able to decide which theory is correct.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
I have said before that this site should have a "dustbin" for threads like this.
 
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
If you have something to comment to the experiment please do it..
If you comment about dustbin ... first is better to analyse the actual scientific information and the quality of this information ...
 

lyner

  • Guest
Centaur,
Before you will retire (as I've seen you are close) I think,  you will observe that you have learned for a entire life a theory of illusions.
I don't think it will be more bitter taste for your retirement. To spend a entire life teaching about a false theory, and when a more valuable theory appear to be incapable to recognise it. The routine becomes sometimes the second nature.
I'm not upset if none will make comments on my posts. I'm not upset if an official body take in consideration my writings. I made what is necessary in order to have visibility for the theory.
If Europe is more reticent, as I observed from the site visitors, the theory is appreciated in US network of univeristies. There will be a small number of time -looser interested in experiment repeating and they will be able to decide which theory is correct.

Owch!
And the PROOF of your theory? Where do I go to find that?
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
None is more blind like a man who does not want to see... (I think is a correct translation from bible).
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
The theory is not wrong as you believe.
Of course, I've seen on the internet people who still believe that the Earth is flat. It is their oppinion. It is your oppinion to believe what you want.

But if you are discussing facts, it isn't a matter of opinion.  The flat-earthers are entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't stop them from being wrong.

Quote
...and I enjoy the pleasure to be unknown; after that it will be quite impossible to make a movement without having paparazzi after me.
I don't think scientists are known for being paparazzi targets, but I do like the idea.

Quote
Therefore if the theory will be accepted in 2010 or 2020, the official body (organisation , state , institute etc) will pay my revenue from 2000.

No they wont.  I'm not sure you understand how science works - you don't publish a physics theory and then get given royalties every time someone uses it.  There's no product, you see, not like in drug development.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
He's not to well clued up on intelectual property rights too, but I really don't see that being impoprtant.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
Ben,
I'm not specialist in international right but I'm clever enough to understand that the actual condition are not like a century ago. In the same time it will be very difficult for a ,,organisation" to avoid this theory ... of course in a hypothetical future..
It is not the time to discuss about the subject. As I said if there are a lot of money spent on nothing, it will be a time when someone will be asked and judged for this. For me, the intellectual rights will be the same (and I refer as total amount).
As I've observed you are clever enough to see between words.
It is really true that you haven't made any comment from the electrolytic cell dispute, but for me it would more helpfull if you explain to others that something is stinking in physics and my posts are not so absurd like the BC or other ,,hero" thinks. 
 

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1503
    • View Profile
No, I haven't commented on your hypothesis, as it's not my field, and BC etc seem to know a lot more about it than I do.  I still think you will need to re-consider if you think that you would get rich from this though, especially the magnitudes of cash you think you may receive.

What I do see from your posts is that you are highly defensive of your hypothesis, and perhaps would receive warmer comments from other members of the forum if you were more open to discussion.

Also, to be honest, I don't see anything 'stinking' in physics, so I can't agree with you on that point.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
As far as I'm aware there's nothing "stinking" in the world of physics.
More importantly, Sorin has not given any evidence of anything wrong with physics in any of his threads.
 

Offline sorincosofret

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
One operator should move this post to ,,new theory" section. I have tried to do myself, but It seems I don't have this right.
All experiments regarding electrostatic need reinterpretation. The concept of ,,charge" is taken into discussion.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8667
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
No theory has been put forward.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums