Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 15/02/2020 19:12:11
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.
Electromagnetic induction is the process of producing electric and magnetic current in a metal wire by:
1) a moving electric field / an electric wind
2) a moving magnetic field / a magnetic wind.
I will begin this answer from far away, but please stay tuned, I will come to the point and I assure you that you will learn something new.
************
We all breathe. Animals breathe too, and plants also breathe in some way. What is breathing? An initial observation could tell us that breathing is a constant expansion and reduction - a pulsation: when we inhale, our chests expand; when we exhale, they reduce in size.
The first two arithmetic operations a child learns in mathematics are addition and subtraction. If we add two to five, in reality it may mean that something that fills five volume units now expands by two and fills seven units. In turn, subtracting two out of seven means that seven contracts by two units and then fills five volume units. Therefore, we can label the expansion with the sign (+) and the contraction with the sign (-). In this way, the act of inhaling we evaluate with plus, the act of exhaling with minus. In mathematics we can play through various computational tasks that often have nothing in common with our real world; but, if we want to stand on the ground of physical reality, we have to say that for each plus, a minus have to simultaneously arise somewhere. When we inhale, it means a plus in our chest at the expense of the surrounding atmosphere, which suffers a minus. This can be seen more clearly when we are inflating a balloon. The balloon is expanding, it means a plus arises within; but, at the same time, our chest is reducing, there is a minus in it. Let us take another example. A vacuum cleaner performs suction (–), but at the same time there is a vent on its plastic covering through which the air goes out (+). With a hair dryer we have the reverse.
Both the vacuum cleaner and the hair dryer are actually propellers (fans). The observer who stands in front of a fan will say that it blows, i.e. it exerts pressure (plus action), while the observer standing behind the fan will say that it suctions, i.e. it exerts depressure (minus action). In general, we could say that the plus denotes an action outwards, the minus denotes an action inwards (figure below).
plus minus .jpg (2.93 kB . 141x89 - viewed 7377 times)Let us now consider a fan with only two blades. If the blades are completely flat, then, when the fan is turning, they will only cut the air like knives and there will be neither blowing nor suctioning. For this fan to function, it is necessary to twist the blades to a certain degree in the following way:
propeller.png (7.25 kB . 112x99 - viewed 7370 times)When this electrically driven fan, whose blades are twisted to the left, begins to turn to the right, then standing in front of it we will feel pressure, i.e. that it blows us (+); while, when it turns to the left, we will feel depressure, i.e. that it suctions us (-). If we twist the blades in the contrary direction (to the right), then at the turning of the fan to the right, we feel depressure (–), while at its turning to the left we feel pressure (+), or the reverse of the previous case [footnote 1].
[ [footnote 1] Regarding the twist of the blades, the reader should think of wringing out a wet towel. If the right hand turns to the right, then we say the towel is twisted to the right; if it turns to the left, the towel is twisted to the left. The same applies to the fan blades.
If we are to predict whether a fan will blow or suction if it starts turning to the right, first we need to look at the twist of the blades. If the blades are twisted to the left, i.e. like this (/) (fan blade viewed from above), then, when this blade turns to the right, it attacks the air first with its "upper" part. Higher air pressure forms in front of this part than in front of the "lower" part, so the air moves towards us, i.e. we are blown. What is important here to us for that what follows is to pay attention to the fact, that the blades of a fan (if it is a multi-bladed) which at a given moment are up blow us more on our left side, and those which at the same moment are down blow us more on our right side; that is, the flux is whirled rather than linear.]
We see that for an observer, whose position remains unchanged (i.e. standing in front of the fan the whole time), the following four cases may occur:
table_1.png (9.99 kB . 208x179 - viewed 7298 times)Look at the broken circles on the figure below. As you move the book closer and then farther away from you, looking constantly at the central point of the circles; or, if you place the book on a table, then lower and raise your head still looking at the central point (in this case the effect is stronger) - it seems as if the circles are turning in one direction upon coming closer, but in the contrary direction upon moving away. The experiment can also be carried out with only one circle. The dashes of the outer circle are "twisted" to the left, those of the inner circle to the right. Upon moving the head closer, the outer circle turns to the left, the inner one to the right. When moving away, the opposite occurs. What does the movement away mean? It means nothing other than that the circle is "blowing" at us, just as with the approaching of the head the circle draws us in. We see that we have here exactly the same conditions as in the previous case of the fans, so that the table above is valid here too.
dashed circles.png (15.48 kB . 176x174 - viewed 7342 times)[ The outer circle corresponds to the fan described in the text box above. When we move our head away, i.e., when it "blows" at us, then it turns to the right.
The turning effect comes about only if the circles' dashes are somewhat slanted.]
Let’s consider these two spirals:
spirals.png (19.54 kB . 225x111 - viewed 7363 times)They differ only therein, that the first turns to the left (observing the black line from the center outwards), while the second to the right. If we make holes in the centers of the spirals, place them on spinning tops and turn the first one to the right looking unremittingly at it as it rotates, then we have the feeling as if it exerts pressure on us, i.e., as if it were pushing us (+), whereas when turning it to the left, we have the feeling as if it exerts depressure on us, i.e., as if it were pulling us in (-). With the second spiral occurs the same but in reverse order. We see that for an observer arise the same four cases from the previous table. (The spiral line turns to the left, the spinner turns to the right - then the spiral pushes us (+). This case corresponds to the fan's case described in the frame above. The same occurs with a screw or a household meat grinder. The thread of the screw turns to the left, and as the screw is turned to the right, it penetrates (+) into the wood.)
Let's go back to the fan again. Instead of an internal drive setting it in motion, it can also be turned by an outside force, as is the case with windmills. To see what happens here, we will make a simulation with a small fan (like those in computers), a hairdryer and a vacuum cleaner. If we bring an operating hair dryer close to the fan, it starts turning in one direction, and upon bringing an operating vacuum cleaner, it rotates in the contrary direction. The reverse happens if the fan blades are twisted in the contrary direction. There are four cases also here, two pluses and two minuses.
Everyone knows that something called "plus" and "minus" exists in both electricity and magnetism. We have all seen that ordinary 1.5V batteries have the mark (+) at the nipple and the mark (-) at the flat end. In magnetism, the two poles are called north and south, but they can be rightly called plus and minus. Which pole is here plus and which minus, we will see later. Do these plus and minus poles of electricity and magnetism show properties reminiscent of those we have just seen? To test this, we will carry out some experiments. Therefore we need two simple, almost identical electrical circuits, each with a battery, a resistor, an LED lamp and a transistor (figure below).
circuits_1.png (11.36 kB . 434x174 - viewed 7362 times)The circuits are independent of each other and do not differ absolutely in anything other than in polarity. What that means will be clear in a moment. The lamp serves as an indicator. When it lights up, it means that current is flowing through the circuit. The resistor (300Ω - 1kΩ) is solely in the service of the lamp, to prevent a stronger current causing damage. What remains is to briefly explain the element called transistor. Unlike the majority of elements in electrical technology that have two ends, i.e. two leads, this element has three ends, because internally it consists of three segments (figure below).
BJTs_PNP_NPN.png (3 kB . 328x50 - viewed 7370 times)About the transistor we will now figuratively say only what we need for the experiments, but will explain more later. What matters most to us at the moment is its middle segment, which we will temporarily call a heart of the transistor. In the drawing we can see that the left transistor has a plus-heart (we call it + transistor), while the right one has a minus-heart (- transistor). We also see that the heart is a kind of bridge between the other two segments. In order to make the (+)transistor work, its heart should be actuated by (+)electricity. Thereby the bridge is established. If the heart is acted upon by (-)electricity, then it behaves indifferently. The reverse applies for the (-)transistor.
The lead from the heart we lengthen with a metal wire that is several or even many meters long, thus its end will be far from the circuit itself. Therefore we will be absolutely sure that the influence we are going to exert on the end of the wire affects only it and not any other element in the circuit. The end of the wire is loose, that is, not connected to anything.
However, in order to check what we have just said, that the (+)heart reacts only to plus-electricity, whereas the (-)heart to minus-electricity, we may hold the loose end of the wire with one hand and with the other hand first touch the (+)pole of the battery and then the (-)pole. We will see that the lamp lights up only in one of the two cases: in the (+)circuit [the circuit with the (+)transistor we will call (+)circuit] the lamp lights up only when we touch the (+)pole of its battery; and in the (-)circuit it lights up only when we touch the (-)pole of its battery. It is not advisable to connect the end of the wire directly to the (+)pole of the battery in the first case and to the (-)pole in the second for reason explained later in this paper.
What will be described now as an experiment can be done with these circuits' set-ups; however, for their greater sensitivity, in each of them we will add one more transistor [two (+)transistors in the first and two (-)transistors in the second circuit (figure below)]. It doesn't change anything except that we will save on effort needed to do the experiment, i.e., with less effort we will achieve a greater effect. If we still work with only one transistor per circuit the effect will be weaker, but it can be somewhat intensified if we attach the loose end of the wire to a wide metal plate - let's say a pot lid - and if we reduce the resistor's value to 100-200Ω.
circuits_2.png (8.43 kB . 393x178 - viewed 12740 times)Once the two circuits are ready, we take a vinyl gramophone plate, a thin-walled glass, and a piece of woolen and silk fabric. We rub the vinyl plate with the woollen cloth and bring it close to the loose end of the wire of the (-)circuit. We will see that the LED will light up. It will also light up if we bring it close to the wire's loose end of the (+)circuit. But if we play a little bit, we will notice that there is a fundamental difference between the two cases: the LED in the (-)circuit lights up when we move the vinyl plate towards the wire, and the LED in the (+)circuit lights up when we move the plate away from the wire. Now, if we take the glass, rub it with the silk (or woollen) cloth, we will notice that the reverse happens: the LED in the (-)circuit lights up when we move the glass away from the wire, and the LED in the (+)circuit lights up when we move it towards the wire. If we don't move the electrified objects, absolutely nothing happens. As mentioned before, this is quite feasible with only one transistor per circuit, yet the movements of the vinyl plate and the glass have to be much more energetic. But even in this experiment with two transistors per circuit we can notice that the faster we move the electrified objects, the stronger the lamps light up.
The cloths after the rubbing produce the reverse effect from the rubbed objects. Still, their effect dies out much faster than that of the vinyl plate and the glass.
From this it becomes clear that vinyl and glass act completely opposite: vinyl stimulates the minus transistor by moving towards, and glass by moving away from the wire end; vinyl stimulates the plus transistor by moving away from the wire end, glass by moving towards it. We see that there are four cases here as well:
table_2.png (4.02 kB . 141x136 - viewed 12728 times)Let's carry out another experiment with these two circuits. We take a long isolated wire, wind it around a cylindrical object and then remove it, thereby obtaining a spiral-shaped wire. We connect one end of it to the two loose ends of the wires leading to the transistors of the (+) and (-)circuits (here, as before, we can do the experiment with only one circuit at a time). The other end of the spiral wire remains loose. Now we take a strong cylindrical neodymium magnet and quickly insert it, keep it inside, then quickly pull it out of the spiral. We notice that one lamp lights up upon inserting the magnet, while the other lights up upon pulling it out. As long as the magnet remains in the spiral, nothing happens. Then if we turn the magnet, insert it and pull it out with its opposite end ahead, the lamps light up in reverse order. They light up more strongly if the magnet is inserted and pulled out faster, if the spiral has more windings, if the magnet is larger and stronger, and if its diameter is not much smaller than that of the spiral. For this experiment to be carried out successfully as described here, we need a very strong magnet, many windings and very quick insertion and removal from the spiral. If these conditions are not fully met, then we don't leave one end of the spiral loose; instead, we connect it to the (-)pole of the battery in the (+)circuit, and to the (+)pole of the battery in the (-)circuit; thereby the experiment is carried out much more easily. We see that there are four cases also here.
That the positive electricity has the nature of expansion (blowing, pressure, explosion) and the negative electricity the nature of contraction (suctioning, depressure, implosion) can also be seen with naked eye. There is namely a whole group of so-called electrostatic generators, also called influence machines, similar but somewhat different from each other: Voss-, Toepler-, Holtz-, Bonetti-, and the most popular and widespread, the Wimshurst-machine. Since this machine is available to us, we will briefly describe it. The basic elements of this generator are two very close (about 5 mm), vertically placed glass or plastic circular plates (discs), metallic sectors of aluminum foil glued on the discs and two metal rods placed in the shape of the letter X, but one in front of the front disc (\), and the other behind the rear disc (/). Although the rods are on different sides, we will say that their X-shaped placement divides the discs into quarters, which we will call quadrants. We term the left and the right one horizontal quadrants, the upper and lower one vertical quadrants. The metal rods, which have the shape of the square bracket "]", end with metal brushes that gently scratch the plates (including the metallic sectors) when the discs rotate. They rotate in contrary directions; this is achieved so that during the manual rotation of the crank, the movement is conveyed by two belts, one of which (for the front disc) is in the form of the letter O, and the other (for the rear disc) is twisted in the shape of number 8. Electricity is generated solely by these elements. Therefore we consider the other parts of the machine as inessential. They are necessary only if we want to produce sparks from the already generated electricity; so, to prevent them from bothering us, we can even remove them. We will consider them later.
If we begin to rotate the discs by turning the crank to the right in a dark room (the most noticeable results can be seen at night in a room with a little exterior street light entering it), and if we do this for at least 10-15 seconds to let the eyes get used to the feeble light, we will notice that the horizontal quadrants emit a light flicker, whereas the vertical are completely dark. On turning the crank to the left the flicker relocates to the vertical quadrants, whereas the horizontal ones now remain dark. Looking even more attentively at the scene, we will notice an essential qualitative difference between what happens in the left and the right quadrant (i.e. the upper and the lower one when the crank is turned to the left). The flicker in one horizontal quadrant is directed from the metal sectors outwards, in the other one inwards. In other words, in the left quadrant the metal sectors are dark and the flickering light glows around them, but in the right quadrant the metal sectors are illuminated and around them it is dark (image below).
Wimshurst machine.png (5.46 kB . 148x136 - viewed 7377 times)The sectors in the image are drawn as a whole, and not individually, because the light phenomenon appears as a whole; more precisely, as two wholes, one left and one right, and not individually in the sectors. We consider this as an ultimate proof of the essential difference between the plus and the minus of the electricity. We say that a proof is ultimate or final when we directly perceive the truth with our senses.
Without turning the generator, we move the wire of the (+)circuit with its loose end towards, and then away from one horizontal quadrant; then we do the same with the other quadrant. We can do also the reverse: move the generator with its left or right quadrant towards and away from the wire (as we did with the vinyl plate and the glass), which is basically the same. With the left quadrant, where the flicker was directed outwards, the lamp lights up only when the wire moves towards it; with the right quadrant the lamp lights up only when the wire moves away from it. If we do the same with the wire of the (-)circuit, then the reverse happens. We see that the (+)quadrant behaves like the glass, while the (-)quadrant like the vinyl plate.
Observing the described phenomena in the dark, we find that we don't actually need any detector to determine on which side is the plus-, and on which side the minus-electricity.
Whether the plus will appear in the left, and the minus in the right quadrant, or the reverse will happen, is left to chance. The plus and the minus may occasionally change sides.
P.S. On this forum it is not allowed more than 20000 characters per thread, so please read the part 2 at this link:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78633.0
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2020 19:24:13
but they can be rightly called plus and minus.No they can not.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 15/02/2020 19:35:09
That is in the Part 2.but they can be rightly called plus and minus.No they can not.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2020 21:04:49
Nothing that you write on any post changes the English language.That is in the Part 2.but they can be rightly called plus and minus.No they can not.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 17/02/2020 19:29:47
No they can not.You didn't elaborate why the magnetic poles cannot be called plus and minus. "They can not" is not enough.
I have no intention to change the English language. As far as I know, the words "plus" and "minus" exist in it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2020 19:36:24
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 17/02/2020 20:02:50
Do you understand that you can not call the Queen of England "Eric", because that's not her name?You have no arguments and make ridiculous comparisons.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2020 21:10:30
What is ridiculous is saying you can call something by the wrong name.
However, compared to the rest of the nonsense you post, that's hardly worth worrying about.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 17/02/2020 21:29:05
It's not a ridiculous comparison.Although the discussion with you keeps my threads on the top, I think I should stop it because it has no meaning at all and just bothers the other members of the forum.
What is ridiculous is saying you can call something by the wrong name.
However, compared to the rest of the nonsense you post, that's hardly worth worrying about.
With a man who only says "No, it is not true", "No, they can not", No, No, No ..... , and thereby gives no elaboration at all, one cannot discuss meaningfully.
You are not only Bored, you are also Boring. Very boring.
Give me a break, please. Ignore my threads.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2020 21:34:05
With a man who only says "No, it is not true", "No, they can not", No, No, No ..... , and thereby gives no elaboration at all, one cannot discuss meaningfully.
You failed to answer my question
Do you understand that you can not call the Queen of England "Eric", because that's not her name?so it's you who refuses to discuss things.
You just want to preach your silly ideas.
When you can actually show that
(1) the conventional view is wrong and
(2) your view is better
We might start paying you some attention.
To do that you will need to show the maths you use to calculate things.
Until you can do that, you simply are not doing science.
And, while you do that, it is you who bothers the other forum members.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 17/02/2020 21:46:43
No, I won't answer your stupid questions.With a man who only says "No, it is not true", "No, they can not", No, No, No ..... , and thereby gives no elaboration at all, one cannot discuss meaningfully.
You failed to answer my questionDo you understand that you can not call the Queen of England "Eric", because that's not her name?so it's you who refuses to discuss things.
You just want to preach your silly ideas.
When you can actually show that
(1) the conventional view is wrong and
(2) your view is better
We might start paying you some attention.
To do that you will need to show the maths you use to calculate things.
Until you can do that, you simply are not doing science.
And, while you do that, it is you who bothers the other forum members.
As I said in other threads, who needs further elaboration, including math, he/she can find it in my book which is downloadable free of charge at [spam removed]
Good buy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2020 22:01:40
No, I won't answer your stupid questions.OK
Leave the forum, because answering questions is what you agreed to when you joined.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0