Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 09/12/2019 20:26:20
THIS POST AND OTHERS BY THE SAME POSTER APPEAR TO BE EDUCATIONAL IN NATURE, HOWEVER THEY CONTAIN SERIOUS ERRORS AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES.
Contrary to everything you have learned about the so called “cathode rays”, I assert something completely different about them.
Please look at this drawing:
Cathode ray tube.JPG (5.86 kB . 350x170 - viewed 7934 times)This is a kind of cathode ray tube (CRT), also called Braun tube, which can be found in every CRT TV, monitor or oscilloscope. On the left side of the tube is the negative electrode (the cathode) and a little to the right is the positive (the anode), which is in the form of a metal disk with a small hole in the middle. To the right of the anode there are two additional electrodes which, when connected to a high DC voltage, deflect the beam from its straight line upwards to the positive electrode. The beam itself is actually invisible, but is made visible by adding a small amount of some inert gas into the tube (neon, argon etc.).
The contemporary physics asserts that this is a beam of negative particles, called electrons, traveling from the cathode through the anode and then hitting the opposite wall of the tube.
I assert that this so-called “beam” is actually an electromagnetic vortex (EM-tornado).
Real CRT.JPG (15.16 kB . 602x277 - viewed 7740 times)(a real image of a CRT taken from the Youtube video Magnetic Forces and Magnetic Fields.)
What the author of this answer regards as contradictory in the assertion of moving negative electricity from the cathode through the anode to the opposite wall are two things. The first is of principle nature: one of the basic principles of nature is that the movement is always from the positive to the negative and not contrariwise (please read https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78171.0 (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78171.0)). The second is a matter of fact. Let us examine the nature of electricity around the right part of the tube in the drawing above, in other words, let us examine it in front of the screen of a CRT television, monitor, or oscilloscope - we will always find that the detector shows intense positive electricity.
That it is impossible, negative electricity to travel towards the screen and on its other side to appear positive electricity, shows the following experiment: we electrify a vinyl (gramophone) plate by rubbing it (as we know it is negatively electrified) and place it behind a big glass window. Then we test the nature of the electricity on the other side of the window. The detector shows presence of negative electricity just as it would have indicated without the glass. Glass does not change the nature of electricity on the other side.
Before we present our explanation of this phenomenon, let us consider a few more experiments. We place a stiff copper wire on a table. Parts of its length don’t touch the table. Above a wire section that does not touch the table we hold a strong cylindrical magnet with its positive pole down, so that the wire lies exactly under the middle of the magnet. Then we connect a new battery to the ends of the wire so that the positive pole is closer to us and the negative pole further away from us. At the moment of connection we will notice that the wire makes a strong deflection to the left and up. As soon as we turn the magnet over and repeat the same, the wire will make a strong deflection to the right and up. If we hold the magnet again with the positive pole down, now not directly over the wire, but left over it, however still close to it, we will notice that the wire after connecting to the battery makes a jerky movement to the right and down. How is this explained? In the first variant, the permanent magnet “blows” down; the magnetic wind in and around the wire blows clockwise spirally from the plus to the minus pole of the battery; it blows down on the right of the wire, up on the left of it; on the right of the wire both magnetic winds coincide (the effect intensifies), and on the left of the wire they collide (the effect weakens); the wire moves to where the effect only intensifies, namely to the maximum, and that is to the left and up. In the third variant, in which both winds only collide, the wire deflects to where the adverse effect is maximally attenuated or quite ceased, namely to the right and down.
Magnet over a wire.JPG (14.71 kB . 542x252 - viewed 7569 times)Now, facing a CRT oscilloscope, we let its beam run slowly and uniformly from left to right (visible as a bright dot moving horizontally from left to right in the middle of the screen); then, exactly over the center of the screen, we place a magnet with its plus-pole down. We will notice that the dot moves no longer horizontally, but that it slopes downwards and passes through the center. When we turn the magnet upside down, the dot slopes upwards, passing through the center again. If we compare this observation with what we have just said about the experiment with the copper wire and the magnet, we find the same thing happening in both cases. We conclude that the rotational direction of the magnetic wind generated by the beam in the oscilloscope coincides with that of the wire, as long as the positive pole of the battery is closer to us. So it's also the oscilloscope's plus side closer to us when we stand in front of it.
[ The (+)pole of the magnet points downwards, the beam of the oscilloscope approaches it from the left. On the right side of the beam its magnetic wind blows down, i.e. both winds match; so, the beam is shifted upwards. When it goes to the right side of the screen, also on the right side of the magnet, then their winds collide, so the beam is shifted downwards.]
We explain this phenomenon as follows: the positive electricity radiating from the anode spreads to the right into the broader part of the Braun tube in the drawing above. Since the anode is a disc with a circular hole in the middle, this electricity, with the help of the suctioning minus cathode on the other side of the anode, forms a vortex which is directed to the opening of the anode and continues to the cathode. This electromagnetic tornado is actually the beam that is visible when a small amount of an inert gas is introduced into the tube.
So when we stand in front of an oscilloscope and the bright dot lies still in the center of the screen, then it flows in the tube around the bright dot invisible positive swirling electricity towards us and from the very dot begins a vortex in the opposite direction towards the hole of the anode and onward to the cathode. The bright dot is actually the top of this EM-tornado. (Even with toys that cause a vortex in a water-filled container by means of a small electric motor located at the bottom, it can be noticed that the movement of the water around the vortex is directed upwards, but in the vortex downwards).
The fact that the vortex is deflected to the positive of the two additional electrodes does not contradict this explanation, because I assert that this is not something that can be simply accommodated under the postulate “plus attracts minus”, but rather a positioning of a motion consistent with ambient influences whereby maximum effects are achieved (we could observe something similar in the previous experiment, where the wire was deflected to the left and up while the magnet with its plus pole was positioned over it). For the effect of the vortex to reach the maximum, it is deflected to the positive electrode when additional electrodes are inserted in the tube.
In the above-mentioned toys, the water vortex is fully upright when the electric motor is positioned right in the middle of the bottom of a cylindrical or slightly conical vessel. However, when the motor is displaced to one side of the vessel, the vortex is curved towards the opposite side. In this way, it strives to achieve the maximum effect, in this case to capture the largest possible amount of water and make it spin (YouTube video "Discovery Kids Tornado Lab extreme wheather toys.Real Tornado Sound Effects", uploader dFunKidsToys, from 2:49
In our case the electromagnetic vortex makes a curve to the positive electrode; so it seeks to capture and spin the largest possible amount of positive electricity.
[ When an air-tornado inclines to one side, then it does it to the side where the air-pressure is higher. Higher air-pressure means more air, so it strives to capture more air, make it spin and thus stay alive. If we imagine the positive electricity as a higher pressure, the negative electricity as a lower pressure, then the EM-tornado inclines of course to the higher pressure, i.e., to the positive of the additional electrodes. ]
It can also be assumed that a non-symmetrical conical glass tube would make the vortex curved even without the additional electrified electrodes (drawing below).
non simetrical conical tube.JPG (2.74 kB . 220x90 - viewed 7473 times)[please see also (in slow motion, let’s say 0.25 of the normal speed) how the vortex gradually position itself in the middle of the bottle in the YouTube video "Incredible Homemade Plasma Discharge Tube - Part 1" (uploader Science Marshal) from 2:03 to 2:05
Another detail indicating that this is a kind of vortex is the shape that the bright dot takes when turning off the oscilloscope. It “dissolves” circularly. Something similar is also noticeable on the water surface of the mentioned toy after switching off the electric motor.
[ With the air- or the water-tornado, the force of the gravity is pulling the vortex down. With the electricity the suctioning minus cathode takes the role of the gravity, that is, the role of pulling the EM-vortex “down”.]
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2019 20:33:20
one of the basic principles of nature is that the movement is always from the positive to the negativeThat logical fallacy is called "begging the question".
Also...
shows you are wrong.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 09/12/2019 21:17:25
one of the basic principles of nature is that the movement is always from the positive to the negativeThat logical fallacy is called "begging the question".
Also...
shows you are wrong.
I cannot speak of something which I haven’t experimented with, but at first glance I can say this: the EM-vortex positions itself always in the middle of the tube. So, my assumption is that the paddle wheel is moved by the EM-vortex from below, not from above.
paddle wheel.JPG (6 kB . 370x170 - viewed 7159 times)
Post by: syhprum on 10/12/2019 00:04:10
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/12/2019 20:35:24
So, my assumption is that the paddle wheel is moved by the EM-vortex from below, not from above.But, we know that (in the absence of a magnetic or electrostatic field) the electrons travel in straight lines.
I cannot speak of something which I haven’t experimented with,OK.
Stop talking.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 15/12/2019 06:44:54
The assertion that every TV or oscilloscope uses a cathode ray tube of some sort is about 10 years out of date they have long since been superseded.I haven't said that every TV uses CRT. I have said that the cathode ray tube (more precisely Braun tube) can be found in every CRT TV, oscilloscope and monitor.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2019 10:01:55
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 02/02/2020 22:48:58
But, we know that (in the absence of a magnetic or electrostatic field) the electrons travel in straight lines.Electrons travel in straight lines, my foot! The bottle in the YouTube video, linked in my original post, shows something completely different. The beam there takes this form:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I also claim in my OP that if the Braun tube is non-symmetrical, then the beam will be curved. The greater the non-symmetry, the more curved will be the beam.
Are you ready to bet with me on this?
I am ready.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2020 07:19:44
The bottle in the YouTube video, linked in my original post, shows something completely different.Yes.
Because it contains low pressure gas (presumably air)The air molecules and ions are thousands of times heavier than the electrons and knock the electrons off course .
In a vacuum, they travel in straight lines
If they didn't then things like CRT and electron microscopes couldn't work.
So in fact we know they travel in straight lines and that your ideas are wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2020 07:21:00
Are you ready to bet with me on this?I'm not taking your money, but feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself.
I am ready.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 12/02/2020 18:40:54
So, let's take a more powerful vacuum pump and let's pump the air fully out of the bottle. I claim that nothing will change in respect to the form of the beam.The bottle in the YouTube video, linked in my original post, shows something completely different.Yes.
Because it contains low pressure gas (presumably air)The air molecules and ions are thousands of times heavier than the electrons and knock the electrons off course .
Will you bet with me on this?
And please, take my money this time.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 12/02/2020 18:45:30
The time will tell who is making a fool of himself.Are you ready to bet with me on this?I'm not taking your money, but feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself.
I am ready.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2020 18:48:39
Please send the money to a charity of your choice.So, let's take a more powerful vacuum pump and let's pump the air fully out of the bottle. I claim that nothing will change in respect to the form of the beam.The bottle in the YouTube video, linked in my original post, shows something completely different.Yes.
Because it contains low pressure gas (presumably air)The air molecules and ions are thousands of times heavier than the electrons and knock the electrons off course .
Will you bet with me on this?
And please, take my money this time.
The experiment was already done many times including here.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78247.msg588857#msg588857
And also, as I pointed out, in CRTs and electron microscopes.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 12/02/2020 18:58:17
All CRTs which are in commercial use are almost ideally symmetrical. That's why the beam is not bent.Please send the money to a charity of your choice.So, let's take a more powerful vacuum pump and let's pump the air fully out of the bottle. I claim that nothing will change in respect to the form of the beam.The bottle in the YouTube video, linked in my original post, shows something completely different.Yes.
Because it contains low pressure gas (presumably air)The air molecules and ions are thousands of times heavier than the electrons and knock the electrons off course .
Will you bet with me on this?
And please, take my money this time.
The experiment was already done many times including here.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78247.msg588857#msg588857
And also, as I pointed out, in CRTs and electron microscopes.
No, I am not a charitable person. I want to give my money to you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2020 19:35:45
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 13/02/2020 19:53:47
How would an electron flying through space "know" where the walls of the container are in order to change path?Some questions don't deserve an answer, but I will answer you through a comparison. Please look at the drawing below:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
You know the kids toy "water tornado" with a small electric motor at the bottom. In the figure (a) there is a symmetrical container and the water tornado in it will be fully upright if the motor is exactly in the middle.
However, in the figure (b) the container is not symmetrical and the water tornado in it will be curved to the right.
You now ask me how the water knows to which side the container is extended?!
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2020 20:06:33
It's easy to see how the water molecules can press on eachother and convey a force from the side of the glass to the tornado.
But you are making the absurd claim that empty space can somehow do that.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 13/02/2020 20:17:58
Do you really think that water is the same as a vacuum?It is not an empty space literally. It is full of electricity.
It's easy to see how the water molecules can press on eachother and convey a force from the side of the glass to the tornado.
But you are making the absurd claim that empty space can somehow do that.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2020 20:20:00
If you were right about the "container" making a difference, that welsd would be impossible.
The path of the electrons is straight, even though their environment is very asymmetrical.
You simply do not have enough experience of the world and how it uses electrons to make sensible comments.
You should keep quiet.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2020 20:20:17
It is full of electricity.That has no meaning.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2020 20:22:48
Again, the electron beam travels straight through an unsymmetrical environment.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2020 20:25:15
https://joiningtech.com/jtforms/10_advantages_eb_welding/
You are trying to pretend that it is symmetrical.
It isn't.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 13/02/2020 20:32:47
You should keep quiet.No, you should keep quiet. You are on this forum more than ten years and you haven't started a single topic yet (only two insignificant). You have nothing to say, pal. You are only screaming around and insulting the people.
As I said, let us bet. I can bring a few thousand euros in the bet. If you are so sure that you know something, than accept the challenge. If you don't want my money, then you can give it to a charity organisation.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2020 19:33:59
It's true that keeping up with correcting nonsense posted by others takes up so much of my time that I seldom start threads.You should keep quiet.No, you should keep quiet. You are on this forum more than ten years and you haven't started a single topic yet (only two insignificant). You have nothing to say, pal. You are only screaming around and insulting the people.
As I said, let us bet. I can bring a few thousand euros in the bet. If you are so sure that you know something, than accept the challenge. If you don't want my money, then you can give it to a charity organisation.
You aren't helping.
Please explain how you still think that a symmetrical environment is important to a straight line trajectory for electrons in spite of the evidence that in (among other things) electron beam welding, they travel in straight lines even in very unsymmetrical circumstances?
Also, please explain how "nothing" pushes electrons around.
Post by: evan_au on 14/02/2020 21:09:54
Quote from: OP
a strong cylindrical magnet with its positive pole downEditorial: In English, we refer to the poles of a magnet as "North" and "South", not "+" and "-" (I can't comment on other languages).
This convention originated from the use of magnets in a compass, where the "North" pole of a compass pointed to the North (magnetic) pole of the Earth.
This can be confusing, because we know that opposite poles attract - in fact, the equivalent magnet inside the Earth has it's "South" pole at Earth's North pole(!).
Quote
one of the basic principles of nature is that the movement is always from the positive to the negative and not contrariwiseI would agree if you were talking of movement of:
- Heat from a higher temperature to a lower temperature
- Air from a higher pressure to a lower pressure
- (Conventional) current from a higher voltage to a lower voltage
However, as shown by comments in the thread you linked, Benjamin Franklin didn't know about electrons, so (around 1750) he defined the convention of "Positive" and "Negative", based on the relative electrical characteristics of silk and glass.
- This defines the direction of "Conventional" current from positive to negative. And in fact, in some semiconductors, charge really is carried in that direction.
- However, since the 1850s (a century after Franklin's work) we have known about electrons, and we know that in a copper wire, or a vacuum tube, they flow from negative to positive.
This can be confusing, because the electrons flow in the opposite direction from the "Conventional" current still taught in schools.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Electricity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron#Discovery_of_free_electrons_outside_matter
Quote
let us examine it in front of the screen of a CRT television, monitor, or oscilloscope - we will always find that the detector shows intense positive electricity.I agree that (in the past) when I passed my arm near a CRT tube, the hairs on my arm would move, so I agree that there is some electrostatic potential here, relative to my (probably) grounded body.
You always have to measure electricity relative to something.
- What is your reference point here? The Anode, the Cathode, or something else? This will determine whether it is "positive electricity" or "negative electricity". (Editorial: in English we say "positive charge" or "negative charge" for electrostatics.)
- Most devices that measure voltage have an internal "leakage current", which quickly dissipates an electrostatic charge. How did you measure whether the charge on the front of the screen was positive or negative?
One photo above shows a blue beam traveling through a tube, and hitting the end of a plain glass tube.
- This will not work for a CRT television or oscilloscope, because the beam will quickly charge up the inside of the glass, which will distort the path of the beam, and distort the image. (Plus, the tube must be a good vacuum, unlike the gas producing the blue glow.)
- So real CRTs have an electrode on the inside of the glass which collects the electrons striking the screen, and carries them away so that they don't build up and distort the image.
- To carry these electrons away quickly, this electrode must be at a positive potential relative to the cathode.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 20/02/2020 10:11:14
In all languages the poles of a magnet are referred to as North and South. But "North" and "South" have no meaning for a magnet. They are only words for the geographic directions. The words "Plus" and "Minus" are far more natural for the magnetic poles. The Plus pole is the one which points North in the compass. It cannot be arbitrary, it cannot be a matter of human's convention. It is like to say, who a male and who a female is, were a matter of convention. There is something intrinsic in the bodies which determines the pole.Quote from: OPa strong cylindrical magnet with its positive pole downEditorial: In English, we refer to the poles of a magnet as "North" and "South", not "+" and "-" (I can't comment on other languages).
.....
Please see this image from Wikipedia:
Wikipedia article electric_charge.png (17.55 kB . 430x200 - viewed 5996 times)Could we change the "convention" and reverse the arrows of the Plus and of the Minus. No, we can not. It will be unnatural. And exactly these properties have the Plus and the Minus in electricity and in magnetism. The Plus is an effect towards outside, the Minus is an effect towards inside. That can be seen with a naked eye. Please see "What is electromagnetic induction?" (Part 1 and 2). https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78632.0
or this shorter topic "Is the designation "positive" and "negative" in electricity arbitrary?" https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78171.0
I don't believe in the theory that material particles, called electrons, move through the metal wires. For me the electric current is immaterial electric and magnetic wind through the conductive path. (see "A new explanation of the electric current" https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78153.0)
What is an electric wind?
If we rub a piece of glass with a silk or woolen cloth, then the glass is positively electrified. We say that there is an electric field around the electrified glass. What is an electric field? Is it something material? Certainly not.
If the glass is not moving, then the field is also motionless. If the glass is moving, then the field is moving together with the glass. This moving field is an electric wind. This wind, of course, is immaterial, too. If we move the glass longitudinally to and fro a metal wire, then this wind propagates through the wire in a swirling motion to the other end.
The scientists of the first half of the 19th century spoke of the electric current through a wire as an electric field through it. And it was the right view.
Does anybody speak of the electromagnetic waves (let's say radio-waves) as of moving particles through the air? No, nobody. Just as the EM-waves are something immaterial, so it is the electric current through the metal wires.
There are many experimental evidence that the direction of the conventional current is the true direction of the current. The only "evidence" for the contrary direction is the CRT. But it is not an evidence, because what happens in a CRT is misinterpreted. There is no flow of negative electrons in the CRT, but it is an immaterial electromagnetic vortex.
Concerning Benjamin Franklin, please read this:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78171.msg589265#msg589265
Concerning how I have determined the polarity of the electricity in front of the CRT, please read my thread "What is electromagnetic induction? (Part 1)" https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78632.0
Here I want to clarify something which is not strictly connected to my OP, but since you have said that the voltage must be measured relative to something, I have to say this:
It is not quite true that for measuring the voltage there must be two points. Actually it depends on how we would define the term "measuring".
Let's say we have two containers like this below, but the water jets from the two are not equal. We say that the pressure in one of them is higher than the pressure in the other. Similarly, if we touch with an ordinary phase-tester (PT) (one-contact neon test light) two different wires and notice that the lamp of the PT lights up stronger with the first wire than with the second, then we can say that the voltage in the first wire is greater than the voltage in the second. This is also measuring.
WATER JET.JPG (7.08 kB . 460x350 - viewed 6058 times)But if someone asks you how much greater the voltage in the first wire is than in the second (1.5 times or 2 times or 3.7 times etc.), then you cannot answer the question without measuring those voltages relative to a second point which will be called a reference point.
In the above mentioned thread about the electromagnetic induction there are two circuits with two transistors each. When I move the wire of the so-called (+)circuit to and fro a CRT screen, then the lamp lights up only during the movement towards the screen. When I do the same with the so-called (‒)circuit, then the lamp lights up only during the movement away from the screen. The lamp lights up pretty strong even by slow movements. These experiments indicate that the electricity is positive and intense.
Concerning the CRT with the blue beam: the image is from this YouTube video:
It is a school CRT (more precisely Braun tube) just as any CRT in a CRT TV, monitor or oscilloscope. It is true that there is carbon layer on the side wall of the commercial TV, monitor and oscilloscope tubes, which is connected to a positive voltage to better focus the beam. If you believe that the positive electricity comes from this carbon layer, then let's determine the electricity's polarity in front of a screen of a tube which doesn't have this carbon layer. I claim that it will be also positive. I am ready to bet on this.
There is a small amount of an inert gas inside that tube to make the beam (actually the vortex) visible. The blue color comes from it. The vacuum in that tube is also high. The inert gas has no influence on the phenomena, except for making the vortex visible.
My prediction that a non-symmetrical conical tube (mentioned in my OP) would make the beam curved even without an external electric or magnetic field could clear all doubts. I don't have the means to experiment, otherwise I would have carried out this experiment so far.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 20/02/2020 13:59:08
Quote from: OPa strong cylindrical magnet with its positive pole downEditorial: In English, we refer to the poles of a magnet as "North" and "South", not "+" and "-" (I can't comment on other languages).
Just for little fun to break the very serious discussion. :)
A bit strange thought crossed my mind when I was thinking about my latest post in this thread. We know that the magnetic poles of the Earth are moving. Let’s say (hypothetically, of course) that they begin to move so that in one year time they arrive at the opposite sides of the equator. In the next year, they are reversed, and so on in circle. What should we do? One year we will call the poles North-South, the next year East-West, then South-North, then West-East?!
Wouldn’t that be very confusing?
Shouldn’t we find some other names for them?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2020 19:31:48
But "North" and "South" have no meaning for a magnet.That's so wrong it's funny.
Hang the magnet from a thread.
The North pole points North and the south pole points South
The words "Plus" and "Minus" are far more natural for the magnetic polesObviously wrong, because if those names were more obvious then those names would be used. They aren't.
It cannot be arbitrary, it cannot be a matter of human's convention.It is.
We even know which human made the choice.
It is like to say, who a male and who a female is, were a matter of convention.No.
It is like saying that the words "male" and "female" were, like all other words, made up.
It is a school CRT (more precisely Braun tube) just as any CRT in a CRT TV, monitor or oscilloscope.No, it is not.
A CRT has a vacuum in it to avoid scattering the electron beam.
That tube has gas in it in order to show up the path of the beam.
Could we change the "convention" and reverse the arrows of the Plus and of the Minus. No, we can not.Yes we could.
And your use of bold text doesn't change that.
It will be unnatural.Again, just restating your belief isn't going to change anyone's mind. You would need evidence (and all teh evidence says you are wrong).
or this shorter topic "Is the designation "positive" and "negative" in electricity arbitrary?" https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78171.0You were wrong then, and you are still wrong now.
Making a second thread doesn't work any better than repetition or bold text.
Similarly, if we touch with an ordinary phase-tester (PT) (one-contact neon test light) two different wires and notice that the lamp of the PT lights up stronger with the first wire than with the second, then we can say that the voltage in the first wire is greater than the voltage in the second.No
For example, it's perfectly possible that the second case is a higher frequency supply and the capacitive coupling is bigger.
We could say that the brightness of the lamp indicates current.
That's fair enough - at least to a rough approximation.
But there's something weird about neon lamps. They have negative incremental resistance (over the range we are talking about).
So a brighter lamp- with a higher current- actually has a lower voltage across it.
So, as usual, you have shown that you don't know what you are talking about.
What is an electric wind?Nothing to do with cathode rays.
There are many experimental evidence that the direction of the conventional current is the true direction of the current.Name one.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2020 19:35:14
My prediction that a non-symmetrical conical tube (mentioned in my OP) would make the beam curved even without an external electric or magnetic field could clear all doubts. I don't have the means to experiment, otherwise I would have carried out this experiment so far.
What shape do you want?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geissler_tube
It's obvious that, if the shape of the tube made a difference, people would have noticed a hundred years ago.
You need to explain why they missed it.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 05/03/2020 11:47:13
Let's say you go to the moon (which, as is known, doesn't have magnetic poles) and you have to work something there with permanent magnets.But "North" and "South" have no meaning for a magnet.That's so wrong it's funny.
Hang the magnet from a thread.
The North pole points North and the south pole points South
What would be the meaning there of "North" and "South" for the magnetic poles?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/03/2020 20:33:35
What would be the meaning there of "North" and "South" for the magnetic poles?Convention.
Just the same as the meaning of "North" and "South" on a map of the moon.
It has nothing to do with the fact that cathode rays are, in fact, cathode rays.
Perhaps you should try to stick to the point.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 05/03/2020 20:59:30
I stick to the point, but others don't.What would be the meaning there of "North" and "South" for the magnetic poles?Convention.
Just the same as the meaning of "North" and "South" on a map of the moon.
It has nothing to do with the fact that cathode rays are, in fact, cathode rays.
Perhaps you should try to stick to the point.
In this video it is visible with naked eye that the "beam" is a vortex.
From 1:40 to 1:50
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/03/2020 19:00:22
In this video it is visible with naked eyeYes, and, again you miss the actual point.
If it is visible then it is not an electron beam.
It is a beam of charged particles hitting a screen.
And at the start of the experiment you can see that it forms a straight line.
When the presenter turns up the current through the coils and generates a magnetic field the beam curves.
Everyone expected that.There was never any argument about the fact that, in a magnetic field, the electrons follow a curved path.
Instead, try answering relevant questions like
It's obvious that, if the shape of the tube made a difference, people would have noticed a hundred years ago.
You need to explain why they missed it.
Please explain how you still think that a symmetrical environment is important to a straight line trajectory for electrons in spite of the evidence that in (among other things) electron beam welding, they travel in straight lines even in very unsymmetrical circumstances?
Also, please explain how "nothing" pushes electrons around.
But, we know that (in the absence of a magnetic or electrostatic field) the electrons travel in straight lines.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 06/03/2020 21:32:49
As I see the video is from Indiana university and its title is "Magnetic deflection of an electron beam".In this video it is visible with naked eyeYes, and, again you miss the actual point.
If it is visible then it is not an electron beam.
It is a beam of charged particles in low pressure gas.
Stop posting pictures of things that are not electron beams.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/03/2020 00:58:47
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 07/03/2020 19:35:45
The point remains that the beam is straight until the field is turned on.Let's say we deform the tube a little with a bunsen burner. Then the straight "beam" will be also deformed even without additional magnetic or electric field.
As I said, I can bet on this. But you don't want to bet. If someone from the members or the guests want to bet, I am ready.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/03/2020 19:58:01
Let's say we deform the tube a little with a bunsen burner. Then the straight "beam" will be also deformed even
That's still wrong.
Because, if it was right you would be able to answer this.
And you can't.
What shape do you want?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geissler_tube
It's obvious that, if the shape of the tube made a difference, people would have noticed a hundred years ago.
You need to explain why they missed it.