1

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction fundamentals

« on: 07/12/2008 18:37:50 »

Electromagnetic induction fundamentals

Background and actual explanation

   The Maxwell equations and their predictions constitute the starting point for special theory of relativity. 
 Analyzing the interaction of a magnet and a conductor in frame of these equations, two different situations are observed: when magnet is at rest and conductor is moving and opposite, when conductor is moving and magnet is at rest.
For this elementary experiment a bar magnet, a coil and a galvanometer are necessary.
When there is no movement of the magnet bar relative to coil, or there is no magnetic field, there is no movement inside the galvanometer:
B = const. or B= 0    -->     ∂B/∂t = 0     and finally    E = 0.

When the bar magnet is moving (fig. 1), a variable magnetic field is generated (∂B/∂t ≠ 0).

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1.

This variable magnetic field, in turn, generates induced electric field according to the first Maxwell's equation:
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

When bar magnet stands still and the coil is moving (fig. 2), there is no time variation of magnetic field and there is no induced electric field, according to Maxwell's equations:
   B = Const.    and     ∂B/∂t = 0     and   E = 0

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2

   However, the galvanometer needle is equally moving left and right as in the precedent case.
 The explanation of this asymmetry in actual physic is related to the transformation of electric and magnetic field in different reference systems.
An observer at rest relative to a conducting loop sees a changing flux of the magnetic field B as the magnet glides through the loop. According to Faraday’s law this movement induces an electric field E, which drives a current in the loop due to the electric force qE acting on particles of charge q.
But an observer at rest relative to the magnet sees the loop sweep with velocity v; now the magnetic force qv×B drives the current.
In this way special relativity connects the phenomenon of magnetism and electricity. Magnetism arises from the motion of charge. Different observers, in different inertial frames, will record different magnetic fields. In some cases, the magnetism may disappear in a given inertial frame. However, the total electro-magnetic force will still be the same for all observers.
Based on this consideration, actual physics should reconsider the Lorenz force as being at the same level of importance as any of the Maxwell equations and to include it as a sixths equation (the fifth regard the dependence of electric and magnetic characteristics on geometry).

Why the actual explanation is wrong.

I am not a fan of actual orthodox theory so it is time to analyze in detail the actual explanation and its correlation with experimental part.
It is quite complicate to enter into detail in case of a magnet moving, because the Faraday’s law does not have a basic explanation or a mechanism of electric field generation from a variable magnetic field. Of course in the book a simple and intuitive new explanation is offered for this law.
Therefore the discussion will be focused on the well known Lorenz force expressed as:


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

The first inadvertencies regard the ,,nature” of Lorenz force. By comparison with electric force, the Lorenz force changes only the direction of a charged particle without any acceleration. Therefore, in principle, this force is not able to accelerate the electrons in a region of space and to establish an electron circulation in a closed circuit.
For the sake of discussion, this absurdity is leaved aside and the detailed electron-magnet interaction is presented.     
Let’s consider a magnet bar as in fig 3. and let’s establish the direction of  magnetic induction B in the magnetic field generated by magnet. Magnetic induction is a vector and is tangent all the time to the line field. As consequences, for any magnet, magnetic induction changes the sign, in the space around magnet, relative to N-S axe. For a region of space around north pole, B is directed to positive x, after that turns and is directed to negative x and finally, for a region close to south pole change again to positive x direction. 

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 3.

If the Lorenz force is correct, an electron with speed v, found in different positions with different orientation of magnetic induction B, will be acted on the same force as value, but with different orientations.
Considering a simple case of a rectangular loop, moving with speed v, directed to negative x direction, at beginning the direction of loop speed and magnetic induction are antiparallel like in fig. 4.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]


Figure 4

In this condition the force acting over electrons is:
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

When the magnetic induction change the sign, more precisely the magnet passes through the loop as in fig 5, the Lorenz force will be:
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

When the magnetic induction change again the direction, in a position symmetric to initial case (fig. 6) again the Lorenz force is null.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 6.

Of course, even the greatest interaction is along the NS magnet direction it can be argued that B is not all the time parallel or antiparallel with v.
Let’s analyze this case too, so all possibilities of interactions are covered. In order to deduce the entire interaction over the loop is necessary to observe the symmetry of magnetic field produced by magnet as in fig. 7.


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 7.
In the fig. 7, the interactions of electrons from two opposite parts of loop are figured. The angle between magnetic induction and direction of motion during loop movement cover all angle between 0 and 180 º. In fig. 7 a particular angle, let’s say 125º is figured.
When the formula for Lorenz force is applied, it can be observed that electrons in both part of the circuit are acted by equal forces. Therefore, due to the magnetic field symmetry, the electrons in ab and cd part of loop will run in the same direction (it is not important to establish in which direction).
The same reasoning can be made for the bc and ad part of loop.
When the general circulation of electron is counted at loop level it can be observed that simultaneously electrons are leaving the loop through both conductors, or another possibility: electrons are entering simultaneously through both conductors.
Maybe the experts in the vectors and electric current are so polite to present the ,,orthodox” explanation.

2

New Theories / Inductance and the missing law in actual electromagnetism

« on: 06/12/2008 07:50:57 »

Inductance and the missing law in actual electromagnetism

Maxwell formulated in 1864, a set of differential equations describing the space and time dependence of the electromagnetic field and these are considered as forming the basis of classical electrodynamics.
Maxwell's equations in differential form are:
 [ Invalid Attachment ]  Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction

 [ Invalid Attachment ]  Generalized Ampere's Law

 [ Invalid Attachment ]  There are no magnetic monopoles.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]  Gauss's Law of charge conservation

Besides these, there are the constitutive relations and  the equation of continuity.

Particularly important for present and further discussion are the first two equations:
  1. Faraday's law of induction describes how a time-varying magnetic field B gives rise to an electric field E.
  2.Generalized Ampere's Law indicates that a time-varying electric field will give rise to a magnetic field even in the absence of a free current, i.e J = 0.Consequently a  magnetic fields can be generated in two ways: by electrical current (this was the original "Ampère's law") and by changing electric fields. Maxwell observed that Ampere law did not give mathematically consistent results in circuits with capacitors so he introduced a new term known as ,,displacement current’’. The concept of ,,displacement current’’ represents the original work of Maxwell and this concept will be discussed detailed in the book or in the future posts.
   As far we are in a training period, we warm up with a simple concept – inductance and how this concept is integrated in actual electromagnetism laws.
   All modern texts admit that, Maxwell equations can be used to explain and predict all macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena.
   Therefore a very simple circuit is proposed and it is very interesting to observe what are the prediction of these ,,famous equations”. The circuit is formed from a long conductor with resistance R connected in series with a lamp of resistance R’. A source of DC current and a source of AC with possibility to modify the frequency are necessary.
In the first and simplest case using the DC source the circuit presented in fig. 1 is built.  The other necessary conductors present a negligible resistance

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1

If the Maxwell equations are applied in this particular case, the intensity of electric current in the circuit has the expression:

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Let’s modify a little bit the circuit, putting the resistance R in a loop form as in fig. 2

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2
The components of the circuit are the same, only the geometrical form was modified and as result a new term appears in the current equation, which has the form:

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

where L has a specific value characteristic for the loop.

Let’s modify again the geometric form of the circuit and to form a coil as in fig. 3.
In this case the value of the term L modifies again to L’ and the current through circuit has the form:


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

    Both L and L' values (and the concept per se) are introduced based on experimental consideration without any possibility of prediction from actual electromagnetism.
    If the DC source is changed with an AC, the situation is even worse. With increasing of alternate current frequency, a simple conductor presents a measurable inductance (L). Carefully measurements can demonstrate that even in case of fig. 1 with a DC source, the resistance R has inductance comportment too, but is too small to be observed and used in common applications.
As can be seen in presented example, the intensity of a current in a circuit is ,,dependent” on a geometry of circuit. So, there is necessary to introduce in Maxwell equation a new term in order to relate the electric and magnetic characteristic with geometry. If we go a little bit further, it is possible to demonstrate that ,,electromagnetism” is a simple N dimensional space geometry with some tensors equations as is actual gravitation.
    Coming back to reality, a trustful theory of physic should implement the reaction of a circuit to a modification of a stationary regime as a basic principle.
   Actual electromagnetism is not able to introduce this concept as a specific law, because it will appear like a ,,internal force use”. More precisely, according to generalized Ampere law a variable electric field (E₀) produce a magnetic effect (B₀). In a ,,common   sense” interpretation, this ,,produced magnetic effect” (B₀) can’t generate again a new electric field (E₁). If actual electromagnetism admits the new electric field (E₁) as real, this variable field should produce a new magnetic effect (B₁), and this conversion will continue for an indefinite time. The real comportment of a coil contradicts these infinite cycles of electric-magnetic field conversion.
   In the book a new perspective of these phenomena will be provided. The energy stored in the magnetic field of the inductor will gain a new interpretation. It is absurd to suppose that inductors store the kinetic energy of moving electrons in the form of a magnetic field.

3

New Theories / Franck Hertz experiment and quantum hypothesis

« on: 04/12/2008 04:56:01 »

Franck Hertz experiment and quantum hypothesis

      The Bohr conception about an atom with discrete levels of energy was verified through Franck-Hertz experiment, first performed in 1914. Franck and Hertz bombarded isolated atoms with electrons and showed that the electrons lost discrete amounts of energy, characteristic for each element. Further, they were able to show that electron bombardment at an appropriate energy led to optical emission at the known spectral frequency corresponding to that energy.
   Using a device presented in fig 1 they observed maximal and minimal in the transmission of electrons through mercury vapor, with increasing potential of acceleration of these electrons.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1 Schematic diagram of the Franck-Hertz device

   Electrons are accelerated toward a grid through a sealed tube containing mercury at low pressure. When the accelerating voltage, V, is increased, a current is first observed when V exceeds 1.5 V (fig. 2).
The current intensity increases with increasing of potential up to a certain threshold voltage, at which point the current drops sharply. The reason for this is that the kinetic energy, acquired by an electron matches the energy difference between the ground state and an excited state of the mercury atom. If the energy of the electrons in the beam is less than the energy separation of the ground state from the first excited state, then no energy is transferred and the collisions are elastic. If the beam energy is equal to or greater than the separation of the lowest states, then energy is absorbed, an electron is promoted on an excited state, and the collision is inelastic. If we increase again the potential after first drop the current again starts to rise until it reaches a value when it drops sharply again. Now the electron has undergone two sequential inelastic collisions. 


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Fig. 2 Dependence of current on accelerating potential

   The experiment suggests that the mercury electrons cannot accept energy until it reaches the threshold for elevating them to an excited state. This 4.9 volt excited state corresponds to a strong line in the ultraviolet emission spectrum of mercury at 254 nm. Drops in the collected current occur at multiples of 4.9 volts since an accelerated electron which has 4.9 eV of energy removed in a collision can be re-accelerated to produce other such collisions at multiples of 4.9 volts. This experiment was strong confirmation of the idea of quantized atomic energy levels.

Why the actual explanation is wrong

A true theory of physics should clarify some simple facts:
•   How gain an electron a kinetic energy according to quantum mechanic.
•   How loose an electron an kinetic energy (totally or partially) according to quantum mechanic
•   Is it possible to be formulated a gegen-experiment to actual Franck-Hertz experiment?

   According to quantum mechanic, an electron, like any quantum particle, can gain or loose energy as multiple of Planck constant. Actual physics should clarify when and how an electron in an electric field receives these quanta of energy. An electron acted by a difference of potential U, receive a single quanta of energy or receive more?    These quanta are increasing the energy of electron in a single step or in multiple steps? There are a lot of questions but is not the case to insist here.
   For the present discussion we consider that an electron acted by a difference of potential U receive this energy as a whole.
   If the incoming electron has a kinetic energy (KE) which is less than the difference ground and excited mercury energy levels (ΔE), then it simply bounces off elastically, keeping all its original kinetic energy as in fig. 3. This is the case when KE is smaller then 4,9 eV, and in this case even actual quantum mechanic admit a ,,classic” comportment of electron.
 
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 3.
   If the electron has KE equal to ΔE, the mercury atom becomes excited. An electron is raised up on an excited level and the entire energy of electron is transferred to atom as in fig. 4. Of course it is implicitly supposed that energy of electron is formed by a unique quantum of energy. The excited atom is not stable and after a smaller or longer time interval, it falls on the ground state with emission of a photon.


 [ Invalid Attachment ]


Figure 4.
   The absurdity of actual quantum explanation can be observed when the electron KE is greater then ΔE. If the energy of electron is formed by a single quanta it is impossible to explain how a part of kinetic energy is used for atom excitation and other part remain to electron and contribute to gas conductibility.
   For example, an electron with a KE equal with 6 eV, excite an mercury atom using 4,9 eV, and the electron remain with 1,1 eV as in fig. 5. Further this electron suffers elastic collision with other mercury atoms and consequently, the conductibility of gas is increased.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 5
   In case of an electron with a KE equal with 6,1 eV, after atom excitation, the  electron remain with 1,2 eV. Actual quantum mechanics should explain the mechanism of this quantum split. If the energy of electron is considered quantified, and formed by a single chunk, this split works against quantum theory itself. Of course it can be admitted that energy of electron is formed by multiple quanta. But in this case how can an electron fit its sum of chunks to transfer only a certain quantity to a mercury atom. Entering more into details, the chunks which form the kinetic energy of electrons are forming a photon quantum in certain cases. In this case the actual quantum is not the smallest chunk and another theory of physics should be accepted. These are the actual orthodox prediction. The same discussion should be performed in case of photoelectric effect, with specification of role reversal.
   In the proposed theory, the electron circulation, if there exists, plays a secondary importance. In the proposed theory, the variation of electric field and consequently the variation of free electrons KE are continuous. In order to become free an electron from an atomci structure, need certain energy (ionization energy) and the entire photoelectric effect or the ionization process can be explained in classical physics.  In order to convince actual elites about absurdity of actual orthodox model of Frank-Hertz experiment a gegen experiment is proposed. 
   The idea of proposed experiment:
   If the electrons are responsible for mercury atom excitation, the same phenomena should be observed using other sources of electrons, for example, a source of beta radiation.
   It is known that beta radiations are electrons with high energies. This beam of energetic electrons can be slow down to electrons with energies up to 50 eV using different techniques (decelerating in electric field, bremsstahlung emission etc.). After that, these electrons with low kinetic energies are directed to a low pressure mercury gas and the excitation of mercury atoms followed by light emission of specific quanta is counted.
   For the actual orthodox theory, there is no difference between an electron beam originating from a gas discharge tube and from a radioactive source; the effects should be identical.
   In the new proposed theory, the results are completely different for a beam of electrons coming from a radioactive source, and a ,,beam” emitted by a cathode gas tube, even both beams has the same energies.
   A beam of electrons coming from a radioactive source will never produce a specific line excitation of mercury or other atoms. At low energies, up to 50 eV, an electron beam coming from a radioactive source is scattered by atoms, without any photon emission. At higher energies a continuous spectrum of photon energies is counted (brehmstrahlung radiation).
   The detailed explanation of Franck Hertz experiment and Photoelectric effect is described in Corpuscular theory of light book. In the old Atomic structure book, these explanations were formulated at concept level without a detailed discussion.

4

New Theories / Cerenkov effect and its interpretation

« on: 29/11/2008 21:01:16 »

Cerenkov effect and its interpretation

Background and actual explanation

Pavel Cerenkov discovered this radiation in 1934, while he studied the effects of radioactive substances on liquids, when he observed a faint blue glow in water close to a radioactive substance.
The explanation accepted to date for Cerenkov radiation was first given by Tamm and Franc. The observed light is attributed to a shock wave phenomenon caused by particles entering the water at speeds greater than the speed of light in the water. As the particles slow down to the local speed of light, they produce a cone of light roughly analogous to a sonic boom.
It is assumed that electrically charged particles have electric fields around them as a result of their charge. When such charged particle is moving, the electrical field moves along with the particle. However, since the electrical field is carried by photons, it can only travel at the speed of light. If the particle is traveling faster than the speed of light in a certain medium (water), then the electrical field that is left behind and forms a shock front which manifests itself in the form of light. There are two reasons for blue color apparition:
1.   The atoms in the water become excited by the Cerenkov shock wave and then de-excite, emitting directly blue light photons.
2.   The number of photons emitted by such a charged particle is inversely proportional to wavelength. This means that more photons are emitted with shorter wavelengths, and consequently the spectrum is tilted to the blue region.
This radiation is emitted in a forward cone, and can be seen with the naked eye (as a blue glow) if there are enough particles creating it. The Cherenkov radiation emitted by even a single such particle can be detected by devices such as photomultiplier tubes,
On the other hand, if the velocity of the particle is less than the velocity of light in the medium, the light is destroyed by destructive interference.
   In some scientific book a more ,,fantasist” explanation of Cerenkov phenomena is provided.  More precisely, a  fast moving charged particle moving through a dielectric medium causes local, non-isotropic polarizations in the atoms of the dielectric. These atoms return to normal states by emitting light. If the velocity of the particle is less than the velocity of light in the medium, the light is destroyed by destructive interference. If the velocity of the particle is greater than the velocity of light in the medium, the light remains due to constructive interference.

What is wrong in actual explanation?

At beginning it should be highlighted that all phenomena in the frame of actual physic should respect the quantum hypothesis. In macroscopic world this think is not evident, but this condition is implicitly supposed to be respected.
Cerenkov effect is a quantum effect. It can be observed when a single particle is moving in a certain material medium. Let’s analyze how quantum hypothesis is respected in this case.
   At quantum level an ,,electrical field that is left behind and forms a shock front which manifests itself in the form of light” does not respect the quantum hypothesis.  When a particle hit another particle it is ,,possible” to admit a transfer of energy in chunks. But for an electric field it is impossible to have a quantum variation. Actual physics suffer from absence of ideas so maybe some theoreticians will start to quantify the electric field even this is an aberration; Such quantification will not fit with experimental results because Cerenkov spectra has a continuous variation and not a discrete one. Even with our eyes, we see a blue color an instrument will show that maximum of radiation is in the blue domain, but the spectrum is not monochromatic.
   Let’s analyze a little bit what’s happen at super luminal and sub luminal speeds in a material according with actual physics.
 For a particle traveling faster than light, the wave-fronts do overlap, and constructive interference is possible, leading to a significant, observable signal as is presented in fig. 1.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Fig. 1

Why in this case, for an electron moving at a subluminal speed, the produced electromagnetic waves are interfering and no light appear for an external observer?
From the waves theory, it is known that ,,interference” produce alternations of more and less illuminated regions. To date I haven’t seen a book of physics admitting that an interference of two waves lead to a complete annihilation of both waves in the entire space of interference. Maybe in this case a source of light which is moving in air at a subluminal speed can disappear for an observer, because the electromagnetic waves emitted at different moments cancel one another.
The actual explanation of Cerenkov effect must be ruled out.
In a coherent explanation of Cerenkov effect, in frame of actual physics, only the form of the light distribution should be different when an electron pass from subluminal to hyperluminal speeds as is presented in the following animations:

http://www.shef.ac.uk/physics/teaching/phy311/animations.html

So, when electron passes to subluminal speeds, the light should be emitted in the form of ellipsoid in comparison with superluminal speed when light is emitted as a cone distribution. Why is not happened this?
The possible polarization of atoms in the dielectric and their return to the initial state with light emission does not need any commentary. The quantum hypothesis is again disrespected. A simple and easy to perform experiment can prove the contrary. A non-insulating conductor found at a high potential immersed into a dielectric medium can produce a local polarization of molecules around it. In this case if the potential is cut, the return of molecules at their initial stage should produce electromagnetic waves (light, IR, etc). This is not the case in reality.

With this text, I start the work to a book related to elementary particle, so I don’t have a complete and definite explanation for Cerenkov effect. There is enough time ….

5

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction and absence of charge movement experiment

« on: 29/11/2008 05:31:42 »

Electromagnetic induction and absence of charge movement experiment

Michael Faraday discovered in 1831, that if an electric conductor, is moved through a magnetic field, an electric current will flow (be induced) in it, phenomena named electromagnetic induction. Based on this effect, he proposed the first electromagnetic generator called the 'Faraday disc', a type of homopolar generator, using a copper disc rotating between the poles of a horseshoe magnet. It produced a small DC voltage, and large amounts of current.
Until Lorenz force discovery, there was no explanation to this phenomena known also as Faraday disc paradox.
 Leaving aside all sort of exotic interpretation for homopolar generator, in the frame of actual orthodox interpretation, the apparition of an electric current can be explained satisfactorily on Lorenz force base. In fact any DC motor can be used for experiment, and in absence of a rotating disc, I have used an old dynamo from a car. Due to the rotation of disc in the magnetic field, and taken into consideration the electron mobility, they will be acted by a force:
 
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

where:  q is charge, v is velocity and B is magnetic induction.
In this way, a separation of charge take place in disk, and the connection situated on the disc axe collect the electrons. These electrons circulate in the external circuit ( in our case through ammeter) and through conductors up to the connection situated tangent to the disc.
With actual convention, the direction of electric current is opposite to the electron movement as is presented in fig. 1.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1.

 In fig. 2 is presented the direction of generated electric current using one of multitude of hand rules.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2.

In the proposed experiment, instead of a closed circuit an open circuit is used and the presence of charge is detected using a simple electroscope. Of course, for a high tech laboratory there are more sophisticated methods for charge detection, but it is not the case to insist here.
First trial is related to charge detection by influence. When the rotor is rotating, the electroscope is moved close to ,,positively” charged conductor and after that closed to ,,negatively” charged conductor. Despite a powerful dynamos used in experiment (able to produce 12 V and 2 A at simple hand rotation) no charge is detected by electroscope.
Second trial is related to charge detection by contact. The experiment is repeated and the ,,positive “ or negative conductor is put in contact with electroscope plate.
The same negative result is obtained (fig.3).
Based on actual orthodox theory, when an electroscope is connected to up presented circuit, it should be detected a charge presence. But, the results are completely negative. The electroscope foils does not indicate any charge presence.
It is very strange how is possible to have a dynamo able to produce a current of amperes size in a closed circuit, but not a minuscule charge presence in case of a electroscope and an open circuit.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Figure 3. 

Maybe it is the case to admit that Lorenz force acts only when the circuit is closed. It is not the first case (see photon case) when a particle first is able to ,,know” a objective situation and after that decide which is more convenient to do.
The proposed interpretation is presented in the book.

A second experiment tries to answer to a simple question:
Can we charge a certain body with a ,,negative” charge coming from a CRT ?

For the proposed experiment a modified CRT tube and an electroscope are used. The experiment is very simple. It is ,,known” that a charge transferred on the electroscope plate will lead to a far away displacement of  electroscope foils due to the repulsive force between them.
Normally this experiment is performed with ,,charge” obtained by friction.
The proposed experiment use electrons coming from a CRT modified tube, which are transferred through a metallic conductor, on the electroscope plate as in fig. 1

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2. Modified electron circuit for the proposed experiment

As was already presented in a previous text, the high potential cable mounted on the neck of tube is removed and this potential is connected to a foil of aluminum; the aluminum foil is then fixed on the external part of the screen.
At the connection point situated on the neck of tube, an ammeter and an electroscope are connected.
The electroscope foils does not move even after one day of CRT continuous working.
In order to verify the CRT, before and after experiment, the tube was connected to an ammeter and to a null point as indicated in fig. 2. The discharge current was 7 microA.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2.

It is impossible to explain these experiments in the frame of actual physics. When two materials are ,,producing” a charge in a friction process, this charge is usually smaller then the charge produced by a electron gun. In order to produce a higher charge it is necessary to have a huge surface available for friction, which is not the case in common friction experiments. The third experiment presented in the book will be dedicated to ,,charging by contact induction”, in order to make clear that even this antique experiment is without a logical explanation in actual orthodox physics.

6

New Theories / Does the capacitor current discharge have the correct interpretation?

« on: 08/11/2008 12:16:06 »

Does the capacitor current discharge have the correct interpretation?

Let’s consider a simple circuit made from a DC source, a capacitor and a resistance (fig.1).
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1.

When the switch P is off and the switch K is on, the capacitor charges.
Using actual convention for electric current, an ammeter will registered in circuit a current directed from positive potential to negative potential of DC source. This current charges the capacitor and after a period of time the current stops to flow.
In this process of charging the capacitor plate no 1 become positively charged and plate 2 becomes negatively charged. The potentials of plate capacitor are similar with DC source.
When the capacitor is quite fully charged, the switch K is changed to off and P to on and the discharge current in the circuit is measured.
When this capacitor is discharged, using actual convention, it should have a ,,current” directed  from positive plate to negative plate as in fig. 2-a. This should correspond to a real electron movement from plate 2 to plate 1, through resistance R.
But the sign of this measured current (using actual accepted convention) is opposite to up presented theoretical considerations as indicated in fig. 2-b. It seems that in case of discharge circuit the electrons are flowing from the ,,positive”  plate and arrive to ,, negative” plate of capacitor.
Bullocks as BC said! These electrons do not want to listen of what actual physics says.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]


Figure 2

The accepted theory gives an explanation for this phenomenon. When the discharge process begins, the sign of the intensity must be minus, because the charge on the capacitor tends to become smaller so:
                                            I = –dQ / dt                                   
A simple question can arise in every inquiring mind. How can I define the current intensity in an external electric circuit as depending on the source quantity of charge?
If instead of a single capacitor a battery of capacitor with a greater (theoretical infinite charge ) is used, how can I define a electric current in a circuit as depending on the charge in battery. How can be measured the quantity of charge in the capacitor?
If the experiment stops before the battery is discharged or if the experimenter does not know the origin of the electric current, what is the meaning of electric current and how can be defined? Why the same current definition does not apply to a DC source?
Let’s suppose we have a set of batteries as DC source. After a period of time playing with K and P, the DC source starts to exhausts. With every capacitor charging, the voltage and the intensity of battery set diminishes, so the charge delivered is smaller. It is necessary to have a special chapter in physics where to clarify when the intensity of current is defined as a quantity of charge passing through a section of circuit and when the current intensity is defined as the quantity of charge lost by de source. After that, new stupid rules regarding the direction of these currents must be established. 
Despite this theoretical debate, the experiment can help to make a little bit order in these bullock things.
I will start with an observation made with another occasion, when the conductivity of solution at a potential lower then value of electrode reaction was tested. Having the following circuit (fig. 3), if for few seconds, the batteries are eliminated from circuit, an opposite and lower current flows into circuit. Of course the current is too small to have some detectable effects and is counted as few micro A in the ammeter.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 3
A greater capacitor, charged at a greater current can give precious information about the nature of discharge electric current.
Let’s consider a variant of the first circuit (fig. 4 ) where the resistance is changed with other and more useful components. In a first trial, this component can be a diode having a resistance as protection in order to prevent a violent discharge and short circuit.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 4.
With this improvement let’s see the reality of phenomena.
In fig. 4-a, with capacitor disconnected, the diode lead to current to pass through circuit. A current is detected into the ammeter.
In a second step (not figured) the P is of and K and L on, thus the capacitor charges.
In fig. 4-b, the third step regard the discharge of current through diode. With presented polarity the diode does not let the current to pass through. A very strange phenomena, because the polarity of capacitor fits with diode polarity and the current should flow into circuit.
If the polarity of diode is changed as in fig. 5, the current is flowing into the circuit.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 5

How is possible to have an electric current in this situation?
The diode is not damaged, but it let the current flow with an inverted source polarity like that foreseen by theory.
 If instead of diode an electrolytic cell is inserted, it can be observed that the effects of currents are opposite as is presented in fig. 6. In electrolytic cell a NaCl solution with phenolphthalein indicator is used.



 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 6
In 6-a case, the capacitor is disconnected from circuit so the DC source produces the electrolysis of NaCl solution. Besides gas production at both electrodes, due to NaOH generation as secondary reaction at electrode connected at negative pole, the change of transparent solution color to red is very easy observed.
In a second step (not figured), P switch is off and K,L are on and thus the capacitor charges.
After that, as in fig 6-b, the capacitor is discharged on the electrolytic cell.
Depending on capacitor capacity, the operation of charge/discharge must be repeated more times until a visual effect appears.
Despite of known principle of electrochemistry, the negative charge of the capacitor does not produce any color change in the solution. Instead of this, at the electrode connected to positive pole of the capacitor a red color appears.
For any low level schoolboy, is not a big deal to establish the direction of an electric current having this experimental evidence.
The problems appear when this intensity is correlated with actual concept of capacitor charge process. It is impossible to reconcile the effects of capacitor discharge with actual concepts of charge accumulation on capacitor plate.
Therefore in proposed theory there is no charge accumulation on the capacitor charge or in the dielectric. The concept of capacitance as the charge accumulated on the plate (or in dielectric material) is ruled out. More details in the foreseen book.

In order to insure a rapid falling down of the texts in the messages queue, they are locked. In this way all parts are contents. I have a testimonial and the interested readers can search the materials. If there are scientific comments at material, anyone can direct a message to me and I will post the message even is a critique or is unpleasant for me. If there are only bullock as BC said ….. don’t bother to write me.

7

New Theories / Can be a capacitor charged using a electron source?

« on: 06/11/2008 03:16:03 »

Can be a capacitor charged using a electron source?

Experimental part
 The present study put in evidence different comportment of a capacitor when is connected to   various sources of ,,electric current”.
In this example is important to underline the difference between a Van der Graff device and a cathode ray tube. The complete experiment is presented in the book.

A capacitor bought from market (fig. 1), was tested previously, measuring the capacitance and testing the eventually short circuits between plates.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]



Fig. 1

The second capacitor (fig. 2) was home made using aluminum kitchen foil of about 2 m long and polyethylene foil as dielectric.  The plates with the dielectric inside are rolled on and a compact but powerful capacitor is obtained.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2.

As it can be seen, both capacitors are valid; their resistance is infinite ( in electronic jargon). Both capacitors when charged with a normal  DC source are able to produce sparks of minim 1 cm length.

In a first series of experiments any capacitor is connected with a single plate to a CRT , respectively to a  brush from VDG device. The other plate of capacitor remains free. In order to avoid CRT or VDG interferences, the distance between capacitor and ,,current source “ was set up to about 2 m.
The results are disconcerting.
Having the capacitor connected to a modified CRT ( fig 3)-as was described in previous posts-, when a gas tube  is positioned close to plate 1 or plate 2, no light flash is observed

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 3


In case of a Van der Graff device (fig. 4), with the same experiment configuration, if the gas tube is fixed either close to contact of  plate 1 or either on plate 2, the flickering of tube is observed. There is no difference of flickering between plate 1 and 2. Even after one hour, a capacitor close to plate 2 is still flickering with the same intensity like at beginning.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 4


If the capacitor is connected to the other brush (fig.5)  the same results are obtained.


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 5

The representation of VDG respects the actual accepted charge movements and distribution. 
As was already described the CRT is more powerful then VDG device.  CRT can deliver 3,5 micro A and VDG  maxim of 2.5 micro A. 
How can be interpreted this result?

As supplementary help for those who are interested to explain this experiment, the comportment of capacitor in a little bit modified experiment is presented.
First the discharge current of CRT tube is measured, related to a null point (house heating system).

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

After that the capacitor is introduced in circuit. The main points to be followed regard the variation of current intensity during charging.   


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

 In the experiment, no variation of capacitor charge electric current was observed in time. The current passing through capacitor is about 80 percent from ,,current“ delivered by CRT.  In absence of capacitor the current in circuit was about 7 micro A using a new CRT tube recovered from a color monitor. In the presence of capacitor the current intensity oscillate between 5,5 and 6.5 micro A.
The experiment was repeated with smaller, commercial capacitor. The results are the same. A capacitor does not charge in presence of an electric charge source, and leave the current to pass through it.

8

New Theories / Does a Van der Graff device respect the law of charge conservation?

« on: 03/11/2008 18:12:44 »

Does a Van der Graff device respect the law of charge conservation?

A modified VDG device is used for experiment.
A brush from the system is removed (fig. 1) and special care are taken in order to avoid any ,,charge” dissipation from belt. The system of belt and roller was mounted on a higher support and any other metallic (conductor) parts are made to be at least 50 cm distant.
With this modification the VDG is turned on and after few seconds a small gas tube (9 W power) is fixed at about 5 mm on sphere. The tub starts to flicker. The tube was leaved in this position for a longer time (at least 4 hours). After this time, the flickering process is like at beginning.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

What electric current (charge movement in actual theory) power this flickering?
The common answer will be: from VDG device.
This is a very naïve answer, because if it’s true, the low of charge conservation is not valid.

If it is considered that air performs an activity of charge supplement, the entire experiment can be made in advanced vacuum. The proposed theory foreseen no substantial difference between experiment made in advanced vacuum or in dry air.
 The reason for this contradiction is represented by absence of back up mechanism for belt and roller charge regeneration.
If , due to the friction, the belt is producing ,,positive: charges and the roller negative charge, and  the ,,positive”  charges are removed from system, there will remain an excess of uncompensated negative charge.
In our case, at beginning,  the ,,positive charge” produce a gas excitation, and consequently the potential of sphere decrease with every spark.
The roller remains negatively charged. For few minutes, the negative charge from the roller is not so important. But, after a short time interval (it can be calculated), on minutes range, the charge on the roller becomes huge, and this affect the normal triboelectric process.  In this case, maybe the belt starts to carry electrons from the roller, but this will lead to a decreasing of sphere potential and inversions of it sign. This means, the tube will have period lower or even without flickering. This was not the case in the experiment.
The experiment was repeated with a micro ammeter instead of gas tube.
The expected change of sign of the VDG sphere, observed as change in sign of current does not happen.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

A simple question rise at this experiment: how VDG device with a single brush works?
Looking after experiment, VDG is able to produce with a single brush, the same charge type for very long time. If the law o charge conservation is valid, there should be a tremendous opposite and negative charge deposited on the roller. This is not the case in reality. The roller does not have any substantial charge on it.

9

New Theories / What is the mechanism of charge movement behind a Van der Graff device?

« on: 03/11/2008 17:59:59 »

What is the mechanism of charge movement  behind a Van der Graff device?

If the VGD sphere and brushes are removed, the mechanism remaining is a simple belt moving on two rollers.
The proposed experiments and discussion focuses on the following question:
Do we count a charge movement due to the belt rotation over the rollers?
From triboelectricity it is known that rubbing two materials, one became ,,positively “ and the other ,,negatively “ charged.
In our case let’s suppose that in the lower roller, the friction of the belt with roller produce a positive charge on the belt. In the same time, a negative charge must appear on the roller. The positive charge is carried by belt on the superior roller. Here there are more possibilities.
The positive charge is neutralized due to the second roller and in this case between the second roller and belt an opposite charge must be generated compared with lower roller (fig.1 ). More precisely in this case due to the friction, the belt is charged negatively (and compensates the positive charge carried by belt) and the  roller becomes positively charged.


 [ Invalid Attachment ]


Figure 1.

But in this case, if the brushes are fixed on the rollers, it should be detected a charge movement between upper and lower roller.
In time, it can be demonstrate that in few hours huge opposite charges accumulate on the both roller and due to the enormous attraction force the VDG disintegrate.
Supplementary, this explanation enters in contradiction with already known experimental principle of charge distribution due to the friction. It is impossible to have between two identical materials an opposite distribution of charge only due to a difference of height (the upper roller is with 50 cm upstairs).

Another possibility is to have the same charge type production during the upper roller friction.
In this case, the entire belt becomes positively charged, and the rollers become negatively charged (fig. 2). In time, huge amount of identical charges accumulate on the rollers and huge amount of opposite charge accumulate on belt. It should appear strange effects only due to the belt rotation. Discharge between belt and roller or belt and air should appear.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2.

Both of these possibilities enter in contradiction with already presented mechanism for the VGD device. In VDG device the electrodes are charge collectors. So it is impossible to imagine how the lower roller produce a positive charge on the belt and the upper identical roller produce a negative charge on the belt (figure 3).  Supplementary in all known scientific books, the rollers remain uncharged. How is possible that? Does the low of charge conservation not work in this case?


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 3.

My VDG device produce ,,positive potential” on the sphere and the sign was determined using a electron source (CRT)  as reference and considering that a body charged by contact method with electrons coming from CRT will have a negative potential.

In the actual VDG working mechanism there are other fictitious ideas.
There is a certain distance between brushes and belt. Actual explanation that air between belt and brushes becomes ionized is not a good solution for insuring the transfer of charge. Of course air become conductor over a certain difference of potential and the phenomena of air conduction manifests by easy to observe sparks. In case of VDG it should appear a ,,gun effect” when the device is working. More precisely the charge accumulate on the belt and from time to time sparks appear between belt and brushes like an armed gun who fire with a specific rate. This effect does not appear in ,,normal” VDG working conditions. It can appear, but these are due to a problem in VDG working.
The mechanism of charge transfer between belt and brushes can be proved if the entire system is placed in an advanced vacuum. In this case, in absence of ionized air, the charge transfer should be diminished and consequently the intensity of ,,electric current” produced by VDH should decrease in comparison with atmospheric working condition.   In the proposed theory, the presence or absence of dry air between brushes and belt does not play any significant importance ( the current will be quite the same).
Another problem regards the mechanism of this transfer of charge. It is assumed that with every belt rotation a small quantity of charge is generated by friction and this charge is spread over the sphere. But how is possible this event?
After few minutes of working, the sphere surface arrive to a huge potential, and the small quantity of charge found on the belt should not be able to be overloaded on the sphere. Normally, after short time of VDG working, the charge transfer should flow in opposite direction, because there is a normally tendency to equalize the charges. 

The third possibilities and the most ,,common sense” regard the non-generation of charge during belt rotation.  A belt can rotate on two rollers for weeks without any air ionization and charge accumulation. The proposed theory is based on this non-charge generation. I’ve seen that my explanations are considered stupid so I will try to post here only the experiments or actual defective explanations.

Different and simple variants of experiments were made in order to prove the actual orthodox explanation and the new proposed mechanisms. The experiment regarding the current modification under vacuum condition is not made yet.

10

New Theories / How trustfully is the actual explanation of diode tube working?

« on: 03/11/2008 16:10:55 »

How trustfully is the actual explanation of diode tube working?

I will start this post with a comparative example.
 Let’s suppose there is a golf device able to throw the balls with speed of km/s, having a small reserve of balls attached to it. There is also a child having a speed of 1 m/s, which collects one ball per trip, and tries to refill the reserve as in fig. 1
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1. Comparative example
 
With the maximum rhythm of device throwing, the child can’t insure a stationary level of balls in reserve, and after a certain time interval, there are no balls in the device reserve, and all balls are sparse on the field.
    What kind of relation can be between a golf device and a gas tube (old diode type)?
There is a simple analogy between the golf device and what’s happened in a gas tube.
There is an electrode that throw away electrons with a great speed (decades of km per second) and there is recirculation electron movement which tries to ensure this need of electrons as indicating in the simple circuit 2.


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2. Simple diode circuit

The problem is represented by the great difference between electron speeds in gas tube and electron speeds in a metallic conductor. According to actual interpretation an electron has in metallic conductor a speed of mm per second.
Let’s consider an old tube diode in a simple circuit formed as in fig 2, and a current intensity of 15 mA at a source voltage of 25 V.
A current of 15 mA means in every second a number of:
n = 15*10(-3)/1.6*10(-19) =9.3*10(15) electrons pass through a transversal section of the metallic conductor.
In order to have a continuity of electric current the same number of electrons must pass through any transversal section of diode tube.
But here appear a problem. The speeds of electrons in the tube are enormous related to the electrons speeds in conductor.
As consequence some peculiar effects should appear at cathode and anode.
In a normal ,,comportment”, after few seconds of diode working, due to accumulation of negative charge on anode and in near neighborhood, the anode can’t accept all electrons emitted from cathode. On the anode negative charges appear, and cathode remains positively charged.
Practically, a diode after few second of working in a direct continuous current should become a capacitor, and depending on the resistance of the circuit, after a smaller or longer time interval, the current should stop circulate in the space between electrodes.
These are theoretical prediction of actual electromagnetism. Does this happen in reality?
It is well known a diode can work for weeks without this capacitor effects in DC and this neck bottle effect does not appear.. It is necessary to make the specification that experiments are made in DC and not in AC where the things are a little bit more complicated.
Having the same circuit and two ammeters one in cathode circuit and another in anode circuit, let’s suppose at a certain time the circuit is switched off in cathode circuit (fig.3).

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 3.

It is clear that this gap in the electron flow will impede other electrons to be emitted from cathode.
But, the charge already accumulated in anode and anode neighborhood should circulate further for a certain time in order to be neutralized by positive potential of DC source.
In this case, depending on the anode circuit resistance, a current should be registered for a longer or shorter time, according to actual electrodynamics. Does this happen in reality?
Again there is no such bottle neck effect observed in about half a century of vacuum diode working.
This is only a superficial approach, because the vacuum diodes are part of physics history. But for a detailed analysis a comparison between a vacuum diode and a Klystron should be made. Why a vacuum diode does not emit microwave? The working principle is the same …

11

New Theories / Does the actual concept of electric current fits with molten salt electrolysis?

« on: 28/10/2008 15:17:41 »

Electrolysis of Molten Sodium Chloride

Background and actual explanation

In the example we will use the most common of the salts, sodium chloride. Solid sodium chloride, in normal condition, does not conduct electricity, because there are no electrons which are free to move.
However, molten sodium chloride does.  According to actual interpretation, when sodium chloride and heated and melted, the sodium ions and the chloride ions can separate from one another somewhat, and they are free to move throughout the liquid.
Let’s analyze in detail the phenomena of molten NaCl electrolysis in an electrolytic cell.  The cell is driven by a battery or some other source of direct current.   The battery acts as an electron pump, pushing electrons into one electrode and pulling them from the other.  The electrode from which the electrons are withdrawn is labeled as positive.  The one receiving the electrons is labeled as  negative (fig.1).

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1 Electrolytic cell

The following equation represents the breaking apart of NaCl(l):
2NaCl(l) → 2Na(l) + Cl2 (g)
The half-reactions involved in this process are:
Reduction: 2Na+(l) + 2e- → Na(s) E° = -2.71 V
Oxidation  2Cl-(l) → Cl2 (g) + 2 e-   E° =-1.36V

net voltage required = - 4.07V
The negative sign of voltage tells us that the overall reaction will NOT be spontaneous, and a minimum of 4.07 volts will be required for this reaction to occur.

Experimental part

The experiment has as purpose to measure the conductibility of molten NaCl at a potential lower then 4V, when no chemical reaction takes place at electrodes.
In this purpose a ceramic crucible is filled with NaCl and in the solid NaCl two inox electrodes are inserted. The electrodes are home made inserting two inox materials into two glass tube, which serve as mechanical protection and insulator {fig.2). In the experiment NaCl of chemical purity was used, but the results are the same with kitchen NaCl.
Electrodes are connected to a series circuit formed by a alkaline battery of 1,5 V, and ammeter. Having solid NaCl in the crucible, the ammeter registers a null current (0 mA).
The crucible is heated with a flame coming from metan gas (the flame must be blue in order to have high temperature). After 40 seconds circa, the current starts to flow into circuit, gradually, from 0,2 mA, and arriving to 40 mA after circa 1 minute. After that the increasing of current is less evident, arriving to about 45 mA in another minute.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2. Detail of the experiment

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 3 Experiment details


Experiment interpretation

It is inconceivable to explain this simple experiment in the frame of actual physics and chemistry. Because if melted NaCl is formed by ions, there is no possibility to discharge these ions at electrodes at a voltage lower then 4 V. In this case the electrolytic cell should comport like a capacitor.
The actual theoreticians should choose one option from two possible:
•   A electric current can flow through a melted NaCl salt at a potential lower then potential necessary for electrode reaction
•   The series of electrode potential is wrong.

In proposed theory, an electric current does not mean a charge displacement. Therefore an electric current can pass through a molted salt without having electrode processes. Of course, even there are not electrode processes, the electrolytic cell has a resistive comportment and some power is consumed into circuit. The Faradays lows of electrolysis need some structural corrections.

12

New Theories / Can an experiment discern between electric currents and electromagnetic waves?

« on: 26/10/2008 19:40:28 »

Electric currents and electromagnetic waves hypothetic experiment

Proposed experiment
For the experiment are necessary two sources of alternate current and two sources of electromagnetic waves, with possibility to modify the amplitude and the frequency.
There is a difficulty to find a medium with equal conductivity for alternate current and for electromagnetic waves, but let’s suppose that such medium exists (therefore the experiment is considered hypothetical).
For the simplicity of experiment let’s consider that the arrangements from fig. 1.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1. Alternate currents and electromagnetic waves source arrangements

The experimenter can vary the intensity (I) and the frequency (f) of electric currents or electromagnetic waves sources, and the ammeter in the first circuit, respectively a detector of electromagnetic radiation in second circuit detects the consequences.
For the simplicity of analysis let’s consider that in first circuit I1=I2 and f1 ≠f2; the ammeter will register an intensity obtained as result of vector combination of both intensity.
In case of electromagnetic waves sources, choosing the same intensities I1’  = I2’ and
f1’ ≠f2’  there will be no vector addition of these intensity.

Actual and proposed explanation

Both electric currents and electromagnetic waves are considered as making part from the same class of physical phenomena and they are treated unitary using the same lows of electromagnetism, more precisely Maxwell equations.
The first mismatch occurs when a medium with same conductivity for electric current and for electromagnetic waves is searched.
The second mismatch regards the different composition of two electric current and two electromagnetic waves. There is a similitude of two electromagnetic waves addition like two currents only when their frequencies are the same (interference phenomena). It is necessary to highlight ,,a similitude” because as will be described in the book, even in these case at a detailed analysis there are differences. Generally speaking, electromagnetic waves do not add like two currents.
In the proposed theory electric currents and electromagnetic waves are different phenomena. Beside the different physical mechanism which is laying at basis of electric current and electromagnetic wave production, their effects are different too. Consequently there are necessary different equation and different physical models for these concepts. In proposed theory the Maxwell equations are ruled out for both phenomena description.

13

New Theories / Is it reliable the actual explanation of gas tube glowing?

« on: 26/10/2008 13:11:16 »

Electric charge movement and gas tube discharge

Background

A gas tube, in principle, is a very simple device. It consists of an evacuated glass tube fitted at each end with a metal terminal called electrode. The simplest tube contains inside, a small amount of highly purified inert gas or a mixture of compounds for more complex one. Connected to the two electrodes is a source of high-voltage electrical power able to deliver a limited current. When the current is turned on, the tube glows.
In the absence of a potential difference, the gas inside the tube is formed by neutral particles and the current does not pass through. In the presence of a high voltage potential difference, a process of ionization takes place and the current can flow through tube.
It is admitted the existence of a small quantity of charge in a specific medium (gas) due to cosmic radiation background. These charges are not enough to insure a flow of an electric current. Besides this charge, when a high enough voltage is applied on gas, the electrons of gas medium are stripped away from their respective nuclei, creating conditions of ionization. In these conditions, with a higher concentration of free electrons able to migrate from a region to another, gas becomes a relatively good conductor of electricity.
In a simplified description, the electrons coming from electric current, having a minimum specific energy for every gas, are powerfully enough to hit the gas molecules, to generate new charges between cathode and anode and the low rarefied gas become conductor of electricity. 
Because like electrical charges repel one another and unlike charges attract each other, a free electron is strongly attracted to any nearby positive ion. This attraction leads to the rapid combination of the positive ions and electrons into neutral particle, and this process is responsible of light production and its color depends upon on gas type.
Thus, to produce a gas discharge and tube glows, electrons must be removed from neutral molecules and recombined with positive ions to form other neutral molecules. The practical way of producing this ionization is by passing a current through the gas.
When voltage is applied to the electrodes, cathode emits electrons and anode attracts these electrons. If the voltage is high enough, the electrons will be attracted with tremendous force and will accelerate toward the positive electrode reaching speeds of tenth of km per second.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1 Action of electrons and positive ions in gas-filled tube.
During this trip toward anode, electrons collide with a neutral gas molecule that lies in its path. It hits this molecule with such force that one or more (usually more) electrons are liberated. These secondary electrons, once free, starts moving toward anode. They soon collide with other neutral molecules, generating in a cascade process more charge into gas.  Shortly after high voltage is applied to the tube, there is a general process of ionization in entire volume of gas. Electrons are liberated from molecules, free electrons combine with positive ions, giving off light, and then are blasted apart again.
For our discussion it is necessary to remind the fact that gas current that flow through the tube depends largely on the pressure. In the low-pressure gas, the atoms are fewer in number and farther apart from one another; therefore, the free electron has a longer distance in which to get up speed before it hits a neutral atom. As a consequence, when the free electron hits, it hits much harder, and more free electrons are liberated than in case of higher pressure. Hence, as the pressure is lowered, the current will increase.
If, however, the pressure is reduced so much that a nearly perfect vacuum forms inside the tube, then there are so few atoms available that the current will decrease due to lack of electrons and ions, even though the electron speeds are very high.
Depending on the gas composition, it is known from practice that gas tubes present specific colors:

Gas      Color
Helium      Whitish orange
Neon      Red-orange
Argon       Violetish pale - lavender blue


Experimental part
Long time ago, I’ve found that a gas tube approached by a charged Van der Graff device produce light. There was only a curiosity at that time, but after that I was thinking of the mechanism of tube discharge. At that time, the tube was moved toward VDG sphere with metallic electrode directed to sphere. At a distance of about 1 cm between VDG sphere and tube electrode, a spark appear in the space between, and simultaneously an electric discharge appear in the tube (fig.1).


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1. Glows of a gas tube near a VDG device

For the beginning, in a trial to elucidate the mechanism of tube lightening, a gas tube in from of U is used. The tube is moved close to the VDG sphere, keeping the electrodes outside, as in fig. 2.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2. Lightening of a U form gas tube near a VDG device

Contrary to normal expectations, the tube starts lightning even there is no metallic electrode able to be charged and to emit light. The tube is lightening for minutes (with my small VDG device) in the absence of an apparent source of electrons. In order to block a eventually electron charge displacement from air, both tube electrodes are put in short circuit and covered with a insulating material as in fig. 3 and the experiment repeated.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 3. U form gas tube variant

When this modified U tube is moved closed to VDG sphere, the tube is lightening as in precedent case.

Let’s analyze a little bit these results of the experiments from actual orthodox theory.
In every manual of physics VDG sphere is considered positively charged. So when a gas tube is closed to the VDG sphere, there is no electron flux able to excite the gas in the tube. In fig. 1 the second electrode of the tube is not connected so it is impossible to have an electric current (an electron flux) flowing into circuit. The tube is observed to glow even the actual theory is not able to explain this.
In the fig. 2 and 3, a U gas tube is glowing, even the electric field acts directly on the gas and not on the electrodes. How is possible this? From where is directed this current in gas tube and in what direction is going on?
I leave to actual elite physicists to formulate a coherent explanation.
In proposed theory, the ionization phenomenon is not the principal factor responsible for gas tube glowing. It can be showed the contradiction between ionization phenomena, gas tube glowing and predominance of one color lightening in the spectrum, all these in frame of quantum hypothesis.
Considering a simple gas tube with a single gas inside, let’s analyze the process of ionization taken in discussion the quantum hypothesis and the experiment Franck –Hertz (an experiment fundamental for quantum theory).
In Franck Hertz experiment, it was demonstrating that, in a tube filled with mercury vapors (the results are valid for every other gas, only the values of currents are different), atoms could absorb (and are excited) only by specific amounts of energy (quanta).
At low potentials, the accelerated electrons suffer purely elastic collisions with mercury atoms in the tube.  This is due to the prediction of quantum mechanics that an atom can absorb no energy until the electron kinetic energy is equal with energy necessary to lift an electron into a higher energy state.
The fundamental question is: An electron lift in a higher energy state means all the time an ionization process?
In case of Franck Hertz experiment there isn’t an ionization process effectively, because an ionization process means for colliding electron to have enough energy able to lift the electron from excited state to other higher excited states until the electrons becomes free as indicated in fig.4 -b. 


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

This thing does not happened, and emission spectra of excited mercury give exact indication about type of excitation, eventually ionization. The spectra of mercury vapors emission gives only a single line in ultraviolet (= 254 nm) in case of Franck Hertz experiment, and this means only excitation and not ionization ( fig. 4-a details).

By analogy, let’s analyze the case of simple glowing gas tubes. In case of a recombination process between electrons with kinetic energy of tenth of km per second and positive ions, there should be observed a multi lines spectrum according to fig. 5. In the fig. 5 only a part of entire possible spectrum is figured out. At their speeds, electrons are able to produce a large range of photons from infrared up to x-rays (of course are absent the electromagnetic waves or in actual representation radio and microwave photons). With this complex spectrum, the yields of produced visible light should be lower then a normally thermal source.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 5. Theoretical emission spectra of a gas tube

But the reality is completely different, and a gas tube is very specific. In normal condition, the emission spectrum is composed by a single line or combinations of very few lines.
In the same time it must be highlighted that a direct collision between a free electron with high energy and a positive ion, should determine the generation of primary X-ray photons and in an indirect manner a visible photons.
Despite this prediction, most of common used tubes (mercury is an exception) works directly with visible photons and this means the impossibility of existence of an ionized gas, but only an excited gas. Even in case of mercury the line transition in UV does not mean ionization, it is only excitation, with a greater gap between ground level and excited level. In case it is admitted that mercury line produced in UV is characteristic for an ionized medium, the Franck Hertz experiment must receive a new more fantastic explanation…..
In proposed theory (and if the Van der Graff device produce a high positive potential on the sphere tower), the light emitted by a gas tube has another fundament.
A neutral atoms found in a strong positive potential, becomes excited due to the electron jump from ground state to a excited state. In this case, great parts of the atoms arrive on the single excited state, and their emission spectrum is formed by a single line. In case of excessive excitation energy, there is the possibility to appear more line in the emission spectrum. The low pressure existent in tube prevent the direct collision between excited atoms so, in comparison with a thermal source, a gas tube can be classified as a cold light source.
Of course a small number of atoms can become ionized, but ionization is not the basic fundament of light emission in case of gas tubes.
In the proposed theory an excited gas atom can leave the electric current to pass through that medium. Admitting a time for a electron jump from ground state to excited state and the same time for jump between excited state back to ground level, equal with 10-8 s, it can be considered that electron magnetic moment is available for electric current propagation during this interval of  10-8 s.
Admitting the actual speed of electromagnetic propagation c= 3*108 m/s, it can be observed that an electric current can pass through a 3 m depth of a excited gas without any problem. In reality this depth of gas is greater because any time a fraction of gas atoms are in excited state and another in ground state. There is a continuous permutation between these two states and this ensure a possibility of electric current to pass through on longer distance, of course with a consume of electric energy.
In order to prove the proposed explanation, new and simple experiments are made.
The first experiment is a repetition of a previous U form gas tube experiment with a direct source current attached to it as in fig. 6. When tube is moved closed to the VDG sphere, with the base  U part directed to sphere, a flash of light appear in the tube and a electric current pass through tube circuit, and this current is observed on the ammeter.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 6. U gas tube with DC current experiment
So a single positive potential is enough to excite the low pressure gas and the current flow in the circuit.

 

The third experiment uses a modified CRT electron circulation connected to a gas tube as is indicated in fig 8.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 8 Modified CRT electron circuit for the proposed gas tube discharge experiment

 
In order to obtain this modified electron flow, the high potential cable mounted on the neck of tube is removed and this potential is connected to a foil of aluminum; the aluminum foil is then fixed on the external part of the screen.
At the connection point situated on the neck of tube, an ammeter and a gas tube of different length (different about 10 W power are connected in series. The other connection of this circuit is to a null point (from heating home installation). The CRT alimentation is started and the indication of ammeter and the ,,current” passing through gas tube is counted.
Strange enough there is a small ,,electric current”, approx. 0.1 micro A flowing between electrodes. At this stage of experiments it is difficult to attribute this charge conductibility to internal gas or to material which form the tube.
Probably there are both, because if a tube is connected with a metallic electrode to circuit and the connection coming from the ammeter is touching the glass tube, a ,,electric current”  is  counted. So the glass is a charge conductor, but as is well known has an insulator comportment for a real electric current.

14

New Theories / Does a electric current overlap over a charge displacement ?

« on: 26/10/2008 12:12:46 »

The principle of independent action of electric currents and electric charges

Experimental part

A simple circuit containing a Van der Graff device, a neon (fluorescent) tube and a source of direct current (fig 1) is made. Depending on the type of VDG, it is necessary to adapt the length of gas tube. In my case, I found that a tube with a length up to 60 cm is suitable; with a tube up to 30 cm the visual effects are more evident. An old recovered source of DC used at a inkjet printer with 18 V and 1,5 A output was used.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1. Experimental circuit details
 
With the switch K and P in open position both ammeters indicate zero currents in circuits.
With K open and P closed both ammeter indicate zero currents because the tube has insulator comportment.
With K closed and P open the ammeter connected to null point indicate a current of about 0.75 microA. Depending on the length of tube, for small tubes (less then 10 cm) a continuous flickering of the tube can be observed too.
Leaving P closed and switching K on and off from time to time in case of large tube (about 10 seconds intervals), or leaving the K closed for small tubes, both ammeters detects a current flow. In the direct source circuit, the ammeter indicates a current of amperes order, and in the VDG device circuit a current up to 1 microA.
Nothing interesting up to this moment ….
But let’s change the polarity of direct continuous source (fig. 2) and let’s see what’s happen.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2. Modified experimental circuit details

With P closed, when K is closed or switched on–off, the current of ampere size appear in the direct source circuit too.
Because the entire circuit is large it is difficult to have a photo with details of the entire circuit. But if someone will contest the results I will make these photos in order to avoid any misunderstanding.
In a first series of experiments both electric current from direct source and ,,electric current” from VDG were applied direct on the electrode tubes. In order to avoid a ,,setup error",  in a second round of experiments, both electric current from DC source and ,,current” from VDG were applied to a conductor with length of about 1 m and this was connected to gas tube. In this arrangement, there is a conductor traveled by both currents as indicate in fig. 3. In this case there it was created the possibility to have a ,,mix” of these currents.   
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 3. Pre ,,mix” of electric ,,currents” details

Despite of this improvement, the experimental results are the same.

Results interpretation
For the circuit presented in fig. 1, there are no problems to be explained in actual accepted electromagnetism. With the accepted formalism of electric current sense, in the tube there is a adding of electric current coming from DC source and of ,, current “ coming from VDG device. There is a little bit inconsistent with the experimental reality, the possibility of a current of few microA to initiate the current flowing through both circuits, when a current of amperes is not able to do that. 
The real discrepancy appears when the polarity of source is changed as in fig. 2. According to Kirchhoff's First Law, at any junction in an electric circuit, the total current flowing into the junction is the same as the total current leaving the junction.
How is possible to not have an electric current through circuit when only DC source is connected, and to have an electric current when a part of these current is withdrawn?
Because, when VDG is connected into circuit, the electric current flowing through gas tube is lower then electric current furnished by DC source alone.
I leave to actual elites of physics the pleasure to invent an explanation.
For proposed theory, a charge movement is completely different from an electric current and this idea must be stated as a principle of physics. Therefore in proposed theory, the VDG device produces gas ,,ionization", independent on the existence or inexistence of electric current. When gas is ,,ionized", there is free path for the DC current to flow into circuit.

In order to avoid a false interpretation, more precisely, the VDG device acts first and produce the gas ,,ionization" and after that the current of DC source has free path to flow, the circuit was modified as was presented in fig. 3. The Kirchhoff's first Law does not give any details about junction and from what distance of junction the law applies. Implicitly this means at a distance of 1 mm from junction the law acts, and the resultant current is the difference of added currents. In the experiment, in order to avoid ,,this junction effect”, both ,,currents” were mixed in advance in a 1 m conductor length and after that applied on the gas tube.
The results are surprisingly: after 1 m of premix, the tube is lightening; the effects of VDG device are independent of the effects of an electric current, and the high potential is applied on the tube independent on the existence of electric current.
In the book the principle will be generalized taking into consideration the fact that electromagnetic waves are different phenomena from electric currents and electric charge displacement.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Does an accelerated charge emit radiation?

« on: 21/10/2008 15:25:53 »

Does an accelerated charge emit radiation?

One of the pillars of actual electromagnetism is represented by the following concept: an accelerated charge produce radiation.
The purpose of this experiment is to verify, at least in a qualitative way this base concept.
A CRT and a Klystron tube are necessary.
I remind the principle of working for these devices in order to be clearer.
In case of a CRT, electrons emitted by electron gun travel through rarefied medium and hit the screen. There are some deflection coils, useless for the proposed experiments.
 For an electronician is better to disconnect this deflection coils and prior of experiment the beam is leaved to fall on a small portion of screen. The beam will burn a portion of the screen. The tube will be not useful in the future, but the experiment will be clearer. The experiment is valid even without this trick.

  

 [ Invalid Attachment ]


Figure 1. CRT tube principle


A Klystron is quite similar to a CRT tube but has a small particularity. Let’s cite one of the inventors of this device (source http://www.varianinc.com/cgi-bin/nav?corp/history/klystron&cid=KKIPJHLMFL):
….he thought the first order of business ought to be an explanation of the principle of the klystron. I remember his saying something like this:
"Just picture a steady stream of cars from San Francisco to Palo Alto; if the cars left San Francisco at equal increments and at the same velocity, then even at Palo Alto they would be evenly spaced and you could call this a direct flow of cars. But suppose somshared/ehow the speed of some cars as they left San Francisco could be increased a bit, and others could be retarded. Then, with time, the fast cars would tend to catch up with the slow ones and they would bunch into groups. Thus, if the velocity of cars was sufficiently different or the time long enough, the steady stream of cars would be broken and under ideal circumstances would arrive in Palo Alto in clearly defined groups. In the same way, an electron tube can be built in which the control of the electron beam is produced by this principle - bunching - rather than by the direct control of the grid of triode."
So a scheme of  Klystron tube is presented in fig.2  ( reference and original information is at http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/accelerators/klystron.html). I have rotated the original image in order to be easier compared with CRT.


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2. Klystron tube principle

The electrons produced by gun (1) are flowing in the direction of beam stop (anode) 5. There is a bunching cavity which regulate the speed of electrons so they arrive in bunches at the output cavity (3) where they produce microwave. The produced microwaves are forced to leave the cavity with the waveguide 4.
The first part of experiment intends to clarify what types of electromagnetic waves are emitted by an accelerated charge.
In case of klystron it is clear that accelerated electrons emits microwave. Are produced electromagnetic waves, the result of electron accelerating or there is another physical process which lay to the basis of phenomena?
In case of CRT, the same accelerated electrons do not produce any kind of electromagnetic waves (Radio, TV or microwave). There is a generation of IR,VIS, or Xray corpuscles as result of smashing accelerated electrons in the screen material.   
 We leave aside the energy released by electrons when they hit the screen in case of CRT or at electron collector in case of Klystron, because the purpose of experiment is to establish the electromagnetic waves emitted by electrons during their fly.
Strange enough, the electrons in the CRT does not emit any kind of electromagnetic waves. For the particular case of burned screen there will not be any visual recognition of CRT tube electron emission.
When the electrons are following their path without bunching, there is no emission of electromagnetic wave at all. This fact can be verified with  Klystron modified tube, too, where the electrons are not bounced.
Why in this case a bunching can lead to electromagnetic waves emission?
The answer is very simple ( fig 3).



 [ Invalid Attachment ]


Figure 3. Simple case magnetic moments interaction with electromagnetic wave emission

When some electrons are braked (I think this is the term for past of break equivalent german bremsen) and other electrons are accelerated, there is an interaction between electron magnetic moments of braked and accelerated electrons. These interactions lead to oscillation and even to flip of electron magnetic    moments and this produce microwave.
In the proposed theory an accelerated charge does not produce all the time an electromagnetic wave. Generally, electromagnetic waves are produced by flip of magnetic moments.
I leave the conclusion a little bit evasive in order to avoid a further contradiction, as was with electric current and moving charge. In case phenomena will prove that an accelerated charge emits electromagnetic wave, the proposed theory is able to explain this fact, too.

16

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Do masers and lasers work after the same principle?

« on: 20/10/2008 12:39:51 »

Do masers and lasers work after the same principle?

The presented experiment need only an on-off switch and  few neurons to interpret the results.

Background and actual explanation

The theoretical basis upon which both the maser and laser rest was laid by Albert Einstein in 1917 with a paper entitled "On the Quantum Theory of Radiation," which introduced the process of stimulated emission.
To describe the phenomenon of spontaneous emission (fig. 1), let us consider two  energy levels, E1 and E2,  where  E1 is ground level and E2 an excited level, with E1< E2.
If an atom is arrived in excited state (E2), since E2>E1 it will tends spontaneous to decay to the ground state (E1) by ,,spontaneous emission’’.  The corresponding energy difference must therefore be released by the atom. Spontaneous emission is therefore characterized by the emission of a photon of energy hν = E2— E1. 
Einstein predicted that in addition to the spontaneous emission of photons from excited atoms, there is an emission forced by radiation to which the atoms might be exposed.
Let us now suppose that the atom is initially found in excited state (E2) and a photon of frequency ν, equal to that of the spontaneously emitted photon is incident on the material.
In this case, two photons of precisely the same wavelength and direction are produced (fig. 1-b) and this was called stimulated emission.
The overall result for a greater number of excited atoms is a cascade of photons, all traveling in the same direction and with the same frequency and phase as the photons that shake out the excited atoms.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1. Spontaneous and stimulated emission



Why is the actual explanation erroneous?

A true theory of physics must respond at least 3 fundamental questions about maser and laser and the differences between lasers and masers arise implicit.
These questions are:
1.   Are the maser and laser experimental set up identical with up presented theoretical consideration?
2.   Why it is possible to have a self-sustaining radiation in case of maser and not in case of laser?
3.   Why a laser can’t work with only two levels of energy?

The present text responds in detail only to the first question; the complete answers are in present or further books. 
As was seen at Masers and quantum hypothesis link, there are more possibilities to obtain the population inversion. The present discussion will be focused on the separation of particle from beam due to an inhomogeneous magnetic field; the conclusions are valid for all other population inversion methods too.
Quantum mechanic admit that a inhomogeneous magnetic field with a distribution like in fig. 1 is able to act like a ,,state selector”. The atoms in the upper energy level are entering into the cavity and the atoms in the lower energy level are removed.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1. Maser principle with different types of state selectors

Some problems are arising from this interpretation:
-   What’s happened if the configuration of the magnetic field is inversed?
-    What physical phenomena represent the basis of population inversion?
-   What kind of energy emits a particle found in the higher energy level, in absence of the background resonant microwave?

If the fact that magnet has a hexapol distribution is omitted, it is possible to make a analogy between the Stern Gerlach experiment and the action of ,,state selector”. If the polarity of magnet is changed, according to actual quantum interpretation, the atoms found in upper energy state are rejected and in cavity enter the atoms in low energy state. In this case, the background microwave can’t act to produce stimulated emission, and it should be registered no signal from maser.
The proposed theory, affirm that independent on the polarity change of  ,,selector state” the same signal will be registered at from maser.
In actual quantum mechanic is not clearly delimitate what phenomena lay at the base of population inversion for maser case. In principle, a magnetic field (homogenous or inhomogeneous) does not produce a  ,,population inversion”. A magnetic field produces only a deviation of a particle.
A magnetic moments (see the atomic book) entering into an inhomogeneous magnetic field will be acted by a force, and the direction of this force depend both on the inhomogeneous magnetic field and orientation of magnetic moment. But this does not mean a ,, population inversion”. Maybe in this case, the process of atoms generation is responsible on this ,,population inversion” ? The actual physics should delimitate clearly this problem.
The reality is simpler. In proposed theory the inhomogeneous magnetic field has a simple purpose to select from a fascicle of atoms a sub fascicle with a specific orientation of their magnetic moments.
   If the quantum theory is correct, in the absence of a background microwave, the fascicle of atoms in the upper level which enter in resonant cavity should decay on the ground level and a spontaneous emission should be counted. Of course, a real quantum theory should provide a distribution with frequency for this radiation. 
   In proposed theory there is no such emission, because an atom entering into cavity is not excited, only its magnetic moment has a specific direction.
   It is very easy to be tested the difference between actual quantum theory and proposed one….
The proposed experiment supposes only a disconnection of microwave background which enters in resonant cavity and to interpret the results….

17

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Do masers respect quantum hypothesis?

« on: 19/10/2008 18:24:29 »

Masers and quantum hypothesis

Background and actual explanation

It is assumed by actual physics that population inversion corroborate with stimulated emission represents the fundament of masers and lasers working principle. The detailed presentation of masers will be made in Electric currents and Electromagnetic waves book. The present discussion focuses on ammonia and hydrogen masers and consequences of actual interpretation. These particular cases are known as masers with molecular fascicle which use gradients of electric or magnetic fields in order to achieve population inversion.
The first population inversion was achieved in the ammonia molecule, which has an pyramidal form as is presented in fig. 1., with three hydrogen atoms forming the base and nitrogen atom situated in the head of pyramid. 
According to quantum mechanic, the nitrogen atom can oscillate perpendicular on the plane of the hydrogen atoms. As result of this oscillation the ammonia molecule can have two different configurations. If the curve of potential energy between the nitrogen atom and plane of hydrogen atoms is figured, two minima are obtained (fig. 1), corresponding to the nitrogen atom equilibrium position related to the hydrogen atoms plane.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]


Figure 1.  Nitrogen atom positions relative to hydrogen atoms plane and potential energy variation

For those interested, there is a detailed quantum description of these states of ammonia molecule in Feynman lecture, vol III ( for those who are believing that I'm a begginer in the physics domain, too). From practical point of view, it is important to highlight the existence of two states and the possibility of ammonia molecule to emit electromagnetic radiation when passes from upper level to low level. 
    Population inversion is established by physical separation of molecules in the upper quantum state from those in the lower quantum state. Therefore, a beam of ammonia molecules is passed through a system of focusing electrodes which generate a inhomogenous quadrupolar electrostatic field in the direction of the beam. Molecules in the lower quantum state experience an outward force and rapidly leave the beam and those in the upper quantum state are focused radial (inward) and enter into the cavity resonator. When microwave power of the appropriate resonant frequency is passed through the cavity, amplification occurs due to the population inversion. If the output power emitted is sufficiently large, self-sustained oscillations results.
The emission of electromagnetic waves by ammonia molecule is explained as result of nitrogen atom oscillation through the plane of hydrogen atoms, and the molecule switch from the upper level to the lower level of energy.
The hydrogen maser works after a quite similar principle. A fascicle of hydrogen molecule is dissociated to hydrogen atoms and these atoms are directed into an inhomogeneous hexapole magnetic field and only atoms in certain energy states can pass through. Further the atoms enter into a resonant cavity and when an external resonant energy is provided, excited atoms drops on the lower energy level, releasing the photons of microwave frequency. These photons stimulate other atoms to drop their energy level, and they in turn release additional photons and in certain conditions a self-sustaining microwave is appearing.
According to quantum mechanic, the hydrogen maser utilizes a transition between two ground state level (F=1, mF =0) and (F=0, mF =0) of atomic hydrogen, with a frequency of 1,42GHz
For hydrogen atom these transition means a flip of electron magnetic moment as is figured in fig 2.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2. States of hydrogen atoms according to quantum mechanics
 
As result of these flip the microwave radiation is released in conformity with Planck equation.


Why the actual explanation is erroneous…..


It is necessary in a first step to evaluate the effects of a quite equal microwave energy frequency in the up presented cases. 
In case of hydrogen atom the microwaves produce only a flip of electron magnetic moment as in fig. 2; the electron during and after this interaction continue to move around nucleus. The microwave radiation is not strong enough to move the electron from its orbit or to break the interaction between nucleus and electron.
But what’s happened in case of ammonia molecule?
Quite the same microwave frequency produces an unimaginable result.  An entire atom (electrons and nucleus) is pushed from a position to another position as indicate in fig 3.




 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 3. Microwave – ammonia molecule interaction

As is shown in fig. 3 as result of microwave energy with frequency , the nitrogen atom should receive a momentum great enough, and as result of this gain, it will pass through hydrogen atoms in a symmetrical position, on the other face of hydrogen atoms plane.
It is possible to accept as real this nitrogen atom change of position?
If we keep the proportion and translate the phenomena to the real world it is similar to saying that a fly knock a car and the car is forced to leave the road.
If a correlation between effects of microwaves and X-ray photons is made, other vexatious problems appear looking in the frame of quantum mechanics.
An X-ray photon is able to liberate electrons from a material. Why X-ray is not able to liberate an entire nucleus?  Why a microwave field is able to move an atom but is not able to liberate an electron from a material?
If a microwave is able to move an atom, it should be observed how an X-ray or gamma ray, with a greater energy, should expel an entire nucleus.
The answer is very simple: an X-ray does not have enough energy to do this job.
 On the other hand, does anyone asks how is possible for an atom (with its layers of electrons) to jump in a single step from one position to another position? For a simple electron, when make a jump between two layers it can be admitted, according to quantum mechanic, the single step movement. For an entire atom it is quite impossible to have a single step process.  Up to date, there are no scientific texts which treat in detail this subject – quantum atomic jump – so the quantum theoreticians can use their imagination in order to fill this void. 
In proposed theory as was already highlighted the quantum hypothesis is ruled out. In the same time there is a correlation between energy of incident radiation (electromagnetic waves or corpuscular photons) and the observed effects.
In proposed theory there is a completely different approach of microwave–matter interaction; the subject will be detailed in Electromagnetic wave and electric currents book.
In an appropriate microwave field (resonance condition must be fulfilled), a flip of spin electron magnetic moment can explain the observed phenomena. In a first step a break between spin and orbital magnetic moments is performed, followed by a flip of spin magnetic moment from one direction to an opposite direction as is presented in fig. 4. Due to the linkage between spin magnetic moment and spin movement a change of the spin rotation is counted.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 4. Effect of resonant frequency microwave over spin magnetic moment

The movement of electron outside its orbit or the movement of an entire atom as result of microwave-matter interaction is to fantasist to be real; in proposed theory this possibility is eliminated.   

18

New Theories / Can the charge from the front of a cathode ray tube power electrolysis?

« on: 18/10/2008 05:15:18 »

Cathode tube and charge movement

Experimental part
In a black and white TV or oscilloscope tube the electrons flow in the direction indicated in fig. 1. Cathode emits electrons, which are accelerated by multiple anodes. Electrons hit the phosphorescent screen and a spot of light appear. The electrons are recovered at anode and are re-injected in cathode circuit.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1. Electron circuit in a CRT

For the proposed experiment is necessary to modify a little bit the flow of electrons as indicate in fig 2.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2. Modified electron circuit for the proposed experiment

In order to obtain this modified electron flow, the high potential cable mounted on the neck of tube is removed and this potential is connected to a foil of aluminum; the aluminum foil is then fixed on the external part of the screen.
At the connection point situated on the neck of tube, an ammeter and an electrolytic cell are connected in series. The other connection of this circuit is to a null point (from heating home installation). The tube is started and the indication of ammeter and the phenomena from the electrolytic cells are observed.
In the experiment an old black and white TV set was used as is presented fig. 3

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 3 . TV set used in the experiment with modifications at electron circuit

The ,,electrical current measured” by the ammeter varied between 3.5 and 4 microA.
The circuit is leaved to work for 10 hours. For the experiment a small electrolytic cell (fig. 4) with a volume of approx 15 ml, filled with with NaCl solution was used. As indicator a small quantity of bromthymol blue is added.  During this period of 10 hours of no change of color is observed at electrodes as is presented in fig. 5. The experiment was repeated 4 times with the same result – no change of color at electrodes even after one day of continuous electricity flowing through the electrolytic cell.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 4 The form of electrolysis cell used in experiment

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 5. Electrolysis cell and value of current through circuit at the end of experiment.

In order to have a comparison effect, a simple circuit formed by two alkaline batteries of 1,5 V, an ammeter and a electrolysis cell with the same concentration of NaCl is made. The current measured in experiment was 0.89 mA.
The visual effect after 25 seconds of electric current flowing is presented in fig. 6.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 6. Electrolytic cell after 25 seconds

As it can be observed, at one electrode a blue color appear as a glove around electrode and it start to diffuse in entire volume.
After one minutes and half, when the batteries are disconnected, the appearance of electrolytic cell is as in fig. 7


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Fig. 7 Electrolytic cell after 1,5 minutes.


Interpretation of experiments

The change of color at one electrode is due to the NaOH formation.
 I will start with second experiment because there is a positive result.
 In a time of 90 s and with an intensity of 0.89  mA, through circuit passes a charge equal with:
Q=I*t = 0.89*10(-3)*90 =0.0801 C
As is observed a charge of less then 0.1 C is more then enough to observe the effects of an electric current.
By comparison, in the first experiment with CRT electron source the total charge is:
Q=I*t= 3.5*10(-6)*10*3600=0.126 C

How is possible this?  A smaller charge in case of two batteries produce a greater effect (visual and chemical) the an greater charge in case of CRT ?
I leave to actual theoreticians the explanation for this simple experiment in the frame of actual physics.
In proposed theory a charge movement does not represent an electric current.
Even some effects of a charge movement are identical with the effects of an electric current, there are other effects which mark a clear difference.

Soon the same experiment using a VDG device will be posted.

19

New Theories / Do conductors and insulators fit with the nice presentation from books?

« on: 16/10/2008 23:20:48 »

Conductors and insulators  experiments

The behavior of a charged object is dependent on its composition, more precisely, if it’s 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.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]


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.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

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.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
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.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

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.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

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

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 4. Left circuit short-circuit intensity

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

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. 

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

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 …. 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 …. 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

20

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Are electric currents identical with charges movement ?

« on: 15/10/2008 21:04:28 »

Electric currents in solutions and charge movement

This is a revision and a refinement of a previous experiment presented in atomic book.

The experiment scheme is presented in fig 1 and resides in a circuit formed by home made electrolytic cell, an ammeter and two battery of 1,5 V connected in series in first case and in parallel in second case.


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1. Experiment design

            The electrolytic cell is filled with a NaCl solution containing a small quantity of bromthymol blue indicator.

For the series battery circuit after ten seconds at one electrode a blue color appear as result of NaOH formation (fig. 2). The current through circuit is about 3.9 mA. The color starts to form like a glove around electrode after few seconds and extends in time in the entire volume.


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2. Experimental detail – battery in series

For the parallel battery circuit, even in the fig. 3 is difficult to be observed, at one electrode, after long time, it forms a small quantity of NaOH; details will be presented in the book, here it is not the case to insist because the purpose of this experiment is completely different.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 3. Parallel battery circuit details

In order to eliminate any doubt about chemical phenomena at electrodes, the indicator is eliminated from solution (it is known from organic electrochemistry that organic compounds are more sensitive to electric currents), and a modified experiment is used (fig.4). In series with the electrolytic cell another resistor (variable if it’s possible) with a resistance of minim 5 MΩ is used; the cell is modified too. It is necessary to be used a shorted cell and a saturated solution of NaCl in order to decrease the resistance of the cell to about 5-8 MΩ. If we do that, the potential difference over electrolytic cell can be lower then 0.9 V a potential where it is difficult to believe that a electrolysis phenomena of NaCl solution took place. Of course choosing an appropriate set of potentiometers the potential on the cell can be even lower, but the results are the same.


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 4 Modified parallel circuit

With this new improved circuit the situation is presented in fig. 5.



 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 5. Modified experiments experimental details

As is observed over the cell there is a potential difference of 0.81 V and in the circuit a current of 97 microA.

 

Background and actual explanation

It is accepted that salt solution permits to electric current to pass through, and this is due to the ions which travel toward electrodes and chemical reactions take place at electrode-solution interface. But what’s happened if the ions have not the possibility to react at electrodes and to change the electrons? From electrochemistry we know that for water electrolysis are necessary more then 1.7 Volts, and for NaCl electrolysis approx. 4 Volts. In our last experiment the voltage is much  lower (0.83V) than value necessary for electrode reactions and for electron transfer. In this case according to actual physics the ions must migrate to electrodes and at beginning the intensity must be great due to the movement of charges in solution; in time around the electrodes are formed charged regions (fig 6.) and intensity of electric current must decrease like in fig 7, admitting a constant velocity of ions in solution. After a time interval the intensity of electric current must became zero and the solution transforms in a capacitor in this conditions.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 6. Ions circulation in solution

 
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 7 Expected variation of current intensity

 

The reality is opposite; the current passes through solution a whole night at the same intensity (95-100 microA). I leave to elite of actual physics the explanation of this experiment. Probably a macroscopic quantum tunnel effect is the most appropriate explanation, because a logical explanation for electron circulation through solution is not possible.

Proposed explanation starts from different concepts for electric charge movement and electric currents. In this case an electric current can pass through a circuit without chemical effects. Of course this kind of experiments can be modified in order to measure the power loosed by a circuit when there are or there aren’t chemical processes at electrodes. A detailed discussion about electrochemistry is presented in book ....