The contemporary physics asserts that what positive and negative is with electricity is a matter of human's convention, in other words, it is arbitrary. I have evidence and proofs that it is not arbitrary, but is intrinsically determined in the electrified bodies.
I have a new explanation of the electric current which is based on experimental evidence and proofs.I saw one of your "proofs" in another thread.
In order to convince me that your post is worth reading, you need to tell me what is wrong with the usual explanation of electricity.
What does the usual explanation get wrong?
That's nonsense.
Even if you were right it wouldn't make any difference.
Here is an experiment which if you make it and see the phenomenon, you should be silly to claim further that it is arbitrary.I think this experiment can show that there is properties difference between positive lectrical charge carriers and the negative ones. We already know that they have different mass. There may be other differences that we don't know yet, but we need evidence to assert that. According to history of science, the assignment of positive and negative type of electric charge is indeed arbitrary. The electron wasn't discovered yet by then.
If we rotate the discs of a Wimshurst machine by turning the crank manually to the right in a dark room (the most noticeable results can be seen at night in a room with a little exterior street light entering it), and if we do this for at least 10-15 seconds to let the eyes get used to the feeble light, we will notice that the horizontal quadrants emit a light flicker, whereas the vertical are completely dark. On turning the crank to the left the flicker relocates to the vertical quadrants, whereas the horizontal ones now remain dark. Looking even more attentively at the scene, we will notice an essential qualitative difference between what happens in the left and the right quadrant (i.e. the upper and the lower one when the crank is turned to the left). The flicker in one horizontal quadrant is directed from the metal sectors outwards, in the other one inwards. In other words, in the left quadrant the metal sectors are dark and the flickering light glows around them, but in the right quadrant the metal sectors are illuminated and around them it is dark.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=78153.0;attach=29850;image)
The metallic sectors in the image are drawn as a whole, and not individually, because the light phenomenon appears as a whole; more precisely, as two wholes, one left and one right, and not individually in the sectors.
P.S. Please find a Wimshurst machine, see this phenomenon and then tell me which side would you call plus or positive and which side would you call minus or negative?
How come first you say "it is nonsense" and then you say "even if you were right"?!!!Because, even if you were right about electric current flowing from positive to negative, it is still nonsense to say that the direction of electrical current was not set arbitrarily.
According to history of science, the assignment of positive and negative type of electric charge is indeed arbitrary."THEORIES OF AETHER AND ELECTRICITY - FROM THE AGE OF DESCARTES TO THE CLOSE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY" from E.T.Whittaker (1910)
I believe the crossing lines in the picture represent conducting shafts, but it doesn't clearly show which shaft is for the front disc and which one is for the rear disc.It is irrelevant which of the crossed bars is at the front disc and which at the rear. If you turn the crank to the right, the described phenomenon will appear in the horizontal quadrants; if you turn the crank to the left, it will appear in the vertical quadrants. If you change the position of the bars, then the opposite will happen. More details you can find at the end of my book.
An that's not unreasonable; the disk are traditionally glass and that's fairly high up the triboelectric series. The same would be true if you used perspex / lucite.You don't know what you are talking about. The Wimshurst machine has nothing to do with triboelectricity, but with influence. That's why Wimshurst, Bonetti, Holtz, Toepler etc. are called influence machines. The disk material is of no importance at all as long as it is a dielectric material.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect#Triboelectric_series
However, there's nothing to stop someone making a machine where the disks are made from something near the bottom of the series.
Ebonite would have been one of the old fashioned choices and another fairly common one (in my day, though perhaps less to now) would have been to use two 12 inch records made from PVC.
Now, here's the bit that shows you are wrong.
If I made two wimshurst machines, one with glass disks and one with PVC disks, they would give opposite charges.
The choice of disk material is arbitrary.
And your observation- which you mistakenly think has some significance- would be reversed.
You should really learn about electricity before you try to tell everyone they are getting it wrong.
In my book I have a separate supplement about the Wimshurst machine. The book is downloadable free of charge at academia.edu.You wrote a book?!? Why would you write a book on a subject you shown to have so little knowledge?
You wrote a book?!? Why would you write a book on a subject you shown to have so little knowledge?As I see from your profile, you are 6 months present on this forum and you haven't started a single topic. You have nothing to say, pal.
I can see why it is free...
You wrote a book?!? Why would you write a book on a subject you shown to have so little knowledge?You wrote a book?!? Why would you write a book on a subject you shown to have so little knowledge?As I see from your profile, you are 6 months present on this forum and you haven't started a single topic. You have nothing to say, pal.
I can see why it is free...
Comments such as yours I consider as trolling.
You don't know what you are talking about.Guess again.
In another thread I've promised to upload an experiment video about electric spark generated using sharp and blunt electrodes. Here it is.Dear Hamdani,
Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that an electrical discharge through air is largely carried by positive ions and that this is the opposite to the dominant charge carrier in metals- where the current is carried by electrons?
What are the experimental evidence that "an electrical discharge through air is largely carried by positive ions" and that the electric current through metals is carried by negative electrons?Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that an electrical discharge through air is largely carried by positive ions and that this is the opposite to the dominant charge carrier in metals- where the current is carried by electrons?
Well, for a start, we have spectroscopic data on the ions (among other things, we do mass spectroscopy on them) and hall effect data on the charge carriers in metals.What are the experimental evidence that "an electrical discharge through air is largely carried by positive ions" and that the electric current through metals is carried by negative electrons?Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that an electrical discharge through air is largely carried by positive ions and that this is the opposite to the dominant charge carrier in metals- where the current is carried by electrons?
The plus as well as the minus-potential (/pressure) are not the same along their lines and this may also affect the result.LOL
If an an electrical discharge through the air is largely carried by positive ions then, I guess, a current of air (wind blowing) should be detected between the electrodes.A good point.
If an electrical discharge through the air is largely carried by positive ions then, I guess, a current of air (wind blowing) should be detected between the electrodes.
"THEORIES OF AETHER AND ELECTRICITY - FROMTHE AGE OF DESCARTES TO THE CLOSE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURYbefore we knew anything much about it"
I found an experiment video on youtube, and I think it's relevant to put here.Yes, it is very relevant and I thank you for this video.
(+) vs (-) Underwater Lightning- is there a difference?
electric spark generated using sharp and blunt electrodesThanks for showing the experiment - as you mention, the spacing of the electrodes has a big impact - you are essentially measuring the breakdown voltage of air.
This is one more evidence that the Plus-electricity has a property of blowing, whereas the Minus-electricity a property of suctioning.No, it's not.
This principle can be found in many things, among others also in the so-called “Bernoulli’s principle”.No, it's not.
(see What is the Bernoulli's principle? https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?)topic=17067.msg587651#msg587651)That link goes nowhere.
In other words, the electricity is Plus, the magneticity is Minus.You have resorted to making up words to say things that make no sense...
This is a polarity of first order. There is further once more a Plus and a Minus both in electricity and in magneticity. It is a polarity of second order.Tosh.
Why do you do this?If you live long enough, you will understand.
If you live long enough, you will understand.How long do I need to live before I understand why you post what is clearly nonsense on a science site?
Thanks for letting me know about the bad link.It now points to a page where you hijack a thread about the Bernoulli principle and talk nonsense about currents. (And advertise your "book").
The time will tell what a nonsense is, whether my explanation or some tiny particles running through the wires.If you live long enough, you will understand.How long do I need to live before I understand why you post what is clearly nonsense on a science site?
The time will tell what a nonsense is, whether my explanation or some tiny particles running through the wires.Time told us that about a hundred years or more ago.
The time will tell what a nonsense is, whether the real flow of the current is from Plus to Minus or vice versa.
The time will what a nonsense is, whether the magnetic field (actually the magnetic current) is spirally shaped or like many rings closed in themselves.
some tiny particles running through the wires.
The time will tell what a nonsense is, whether the real flow of the current is from Plus to Minus or vice versa.Both.
I tried reversing the polarity but it doesn’t levitate. It sits a couple of mm above the bottom plate. Also the Corona hissing goes away with the polarity reversed. May need a different aluminum form.
What is a complementary device and why has it not been possible to create a complementary VFET?
In conventional metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs), we have n-type and p-type devices –NMOS and PMOS respectively. This is readily possible since semiconductors can be doped either way. The availability of these two types allows construction of a CMOS with the two devices working as a pair. When connected to a common input voltage, they work in opposite fashion: when one transistor is on, the other is off. This allows the CMOS to operate using less power.
Complementary operation of VFET has not been possible because there is no semiconductor material in the channel for doping and no possibility to create holes to make a p-type device. VFET is unipolar since it is electron only.
How does your design overcome these challenges?
The primary (or the only) source of carriers in a vacuum device is electrons, resulting from the field emission in the source electrode. In the absence of holes, we need an external mechanism to invoke complementary operation (see figure below). That mechanism here is the nanoelectromechanical (NEM) actuation of the gate that modulates the vacuum channel length and resultantly the electron transport across the source-drain channel with the gate voltage. A shorter vacuum channel length is formed, and a positive input voltage turns on the n-type device and a negative input voltage turns on the p-type device.
The NEM-driven gate modulation is a successful technology employed in NEMS-relay switches and other low power electronics.
(https://physicsworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/VFET-635x218.jpg)