Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Mitko Gorgiev on 25/11/2019 13:28:16

Title: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 25/11/2019 13:28:16
Electric current is an immaterial swirling wind through the electrical conductor. The immaterial magnetic wind through it is also spiral-shaped (i.e., it is not perpendicular to the conductor as the contemporary physics asserts). During the flow of direct current, both winds blow from the plus- to the minus-pole of the battery, the electric wind in counter-clockwise direction, whereas the magnetic wind in clockwise direction. These two fluxes are at angle of 90 degrees.

I will introduce a new explanation of the electric current which I call “dynamic” because it speaks of forces (δύναμις = force), in contrast to the contemporary explanation which is materialistic, because it speaks of material particles, called electrons, supposedly moving through the metal wires. I call the new explanation “dynamic” because in its basis lies vibration of electromagnetic forces (EM-forces). These forces are not material. What was just said is well documented when we recall that the magnetic and the electric forces cannot be blocked by material bodies that are placed between the source of the force and the bodies they act on. For example, if we put a piece of iron near a magnet, the magnet will attract it even if we place a plastic, wooden or metal board between them. Likewise, radio waves penetrate walls without perforating them. This can be done only by something that is not of material nature. But even though they are immaterial, a material body is needed as their source. And in order to manifest themselves, they also need a suitable object to act upon; otherwise we would not be aware of their existence.

Other terms necessary to understand the new explanation are “order” and “orientation”. We can get a notion of these terms from several things: from magnetism, thread, wood, etc. When a magnet is brought in the vicinity of iron powder, the particles of the powder will adhere to the magnet with strictly oriented order. If we think of such a particle as a very small line segment, then it aligns itself not only in the same direction with the other particles, but also has a strict orientation of its plus and minus poles. We can imagine the particle as the smallest possible line segment and yet its properties will remain as described. In the thread we also have an ordered multiplicity of tiny little plant or animal fibers in the same spiral direction, except that there is no orientation here, that is, the fibers have no poles.

Now I will introduce the electromagnetic force element, which is the basis of the explanation. It has the following form.

* EM force element.JPG (12.25 kB . 377x398 - viewed 947 times)
The EM-force element has three segments. In the middle is the magnetic segment with its two poles, M(+) and M(–), and at its ends are the electrical plus (E+) and minus (E−) segments, arranged at an angle of 90° to the magnetic segment. We have to imagine this element in a huge multiplicity, evoked by the power source.

* inside conductor.JPG (8.21 kB . 493x133 - viewed 945 times)
[ In relation to this new explanation, we could also visualize a new notion of the matter: if we, so to say, descend ever deeper and deeper in the matter, at the end we come to nothing. But this “nothing” is actually not nothing. It is invisible, intangible, immaterial forces: electromagnetic forces, light forces etc. The matter at the end, so to say, “dissolves” in immaterial forces.
So, we could say that the matter is a kind of condensation of immaterial forces. ]

Let’s say the power source is an electrochemical cell, i.e., a battery. What is a battery? If two plates of two different metals (say copper and zinc) are partly immersed in a dissolved agent (acid, base, salt), then the part of the copper plate outside the liquid is polarized in one sense (plus), the immersed part in the opposite sense (minus). For the zinc plate applies the opposite. Plus means blowing, minus means suctioning (please see Mitko Gorgiev's answer to Is positive and negative electricity nomenclature arbitrary?). The two metal plates of the battery can be imagined as two fans. The one that blows outside the liquid (positive electrode = copper), that suctions inside the liquid; the one that suctions outside the liquid (negative electrode = zinc), that blows inside it. When the electrodes are connected with a metal wire, a closed flux is created. The plus is the strongest near the positive pole and, as we move away from it through the wire, its strength continuously decreases. The same applies to the minus, but starting from the other pole. Figuratively, we can represent it this way:

* Plus Minus arrangement.JPG (5.65 kB . 358x125 - viewed 945 times)
So, the current that emanates from the copper plate is a plus current, because we usually speak of the current through the connecting wire. The current from the zinc plate is a minus current.

Just as the air wind from a fan is a swirling motion, so it is the electric wind through the conducting path. And just as the air swirl is more extended when the air current is stronger, so it is the electricity’s swirl when the electric current is stronger.

* different current intensities.JPG (8.34 kB . 602x99 - viewed 944 times)
But as the electricity’s swirl is becoming more extended with increased electric current, so the magnetic swirl, or rather, the magnetic spiral is becoming more compact (i.e. lesser extended). When the current is stronger, then the magnetic spiral is so tight, that it is practically at an angle of 90° with respect to the conductor’s line; but, of course, never ideally. At the same time the electricity’s spiral is practically at an angle of 0° with respect to the conductor’s line.

Here we have something very similar to the water swirl and its cavitation. When a propeller is turning underwater, then the motion of the water is to one direction, while the motion of the cavities is at angle of 90° with respect to that of the water (drawing below). The faster the propeller is turning, the more extended is the water swirl and the more compacted is the cavities’ spiral.

* water_cavities arrangement.JPG (11.03 kB . 290x261 - viewed 945 times)
The motion of the water corresponds to the motion of the electric wind; the motion of the cavities corresponds to the magnetic wind.

Please watch these two short YouTube videos:

"underwater propeller test" (from 2:22) (uploader Nautica Benaco)

"Underwater film of a propeller while running" (uploader Juerg Schenkel)

Although the electromagnetic element is represented by straight lines, it is only a symbolic representation. Each line represents a flux, and the many elementary fluxes unify themselves in a single electromagnetic flux (principle of self-similarity).
The E and M-segments could be imagined as helical gears.

Probably it seems inconsistent that we draw the EM-force element so that the arrows of both E-segments point from their sources outwards on the one hand, while on the other hand we say that the one force has a suctioning effect. Hence, its arrow should have been drawn in the opposite direction. However, the direction of the arrows does not refer to whether the force acts from the source outwards or inwards, but rather to the effect of the action of both E-segments on the M-segment, that is, on its righting with respect to the wire line.

Quotation from Hans Christian Oersted (21 July, 1821): “All the effects on the north pole above-mentioned are easily understood by supposing that negative electricity moves in a spiral line bent towards the right, and propels the north pole, but does not act on the south pole. The effects on the south pole are explained in a similar manner, if we ascribe to positive electricity a contrary motion and power of acting on the south pole, but not upon the north. The agreement of this law with nature will be better seen by a repetition of the experiments than by a long explanation. The mode of judging of the experiments will be much facilitated if the course of the electricities in the uniting wire be pointed out by marks or figures.”

Quotation from Michael Faraday (1822): “The theory of M.Oersted, therefore, seems to require that there be two electric fluids; that they be not either combined or separate, but in the act of combining so as to produce an electric conflict; that they move nevertheless separate from each other, and in opposite spiral directions, through and round the wire; and that they have entirely distinct and different magnetical powers; the one electricity (negative) propelling the north pole of a magnet, but having no action at all on the south pole; the other electricity (positive) propelling the south pole, but having no power over the north pole.
I have before said, that I am not able to comprehend the whole of the Professor's statement, and, perhaps, therefore, ought not to send you any account of it. It is to be hoped, however, that this celebrated philosopher will shortly develope the principles more at large, which have already led him to the results he has published; and there can be no doubt that in pursuing them he will arrive at other results as new to the world, as important to science, and as honourable to himself, as those he has already made known.”

P.S. More systematically explained and with many more details and experimental evidence, you can read in my book.
Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/11/2019 00:30:00
In order to convince me that your post is worth reading, you need to tell me what is wrong with the  usual explanation of electricity.

What does the usual  explanation get wrong?
Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 26/11/2019 09:55:30
First of all, I want to say that I have a new explanation of the electric current which is based on experimental evidence and proofs. One has to read my book to get acquainted with all the experimental arguments that support my explanation. The book can be found on academia.edu under my name.

Many things are wrong with the contemporary explanation. In this reply I will tell only the basic one. The contemporary physics asserts that what positive and negative is with electricity is a matter of human's convention, in other words, it is arbitrary. I have evidence and proofs that it is not arbitrary, but is intrinsically determined in the electrified bodies. Plus is an effect towards outside (expansion, blowing), Minus is an effect towards inside (contraction, suctioning).
From this follows that the electric current flows de jure and de facto from the positive to the negative terminal of the battery through the outer conductive path.
I will write more when I get more time.
As an attachment I give the first part of my book.
Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/11/2019 13:19:49
The contemporary physics asserts that what positive and negative is with electricity is a matter of human's convention, in other words, it is arbitrary. I have evidence and proofs that it is not arbitrary, but is intrinsically determined in the electrified bodies.

That's nonsense.
Even if you were right it wouldn't make any difference.
The terminology of positive and negative were established well before anyone knew enough about electricity to say how it works.
So the decision was made on an arbitrary basis.

Nothing that happens today can stop a decision made 200 years ago being arbitrary.



I have a new explanation of the electric current which is based on experimental evidence and proofs.
I saw one of your "proofs"  in another thread.
It doesn't make sense and it doesn't prove anything.
As I said,

In order to convince me that your post is worth reading, you need to tell me what is wrong with the  usual explanation of electricity.

What does the usual  explanation get wrong?
Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 26/11/2019 22:25:21
That's nonsense.
Even if you were right it wouldn't make any difference.

How come first you say "it is nonsense" and then you say "even if you were right"?!!!
             - - - - - - - - -
Here is an experiment which if you make it and see the phenomenon, you should be silly to claim further that it is arbitrary.

If we rotate the discs of a Wimshurst machine by turning the crank manually to the right in a dark room (the most noticeable results can be seen at night in a room with a little exterior street light entering it), and if we do this for at least 10-15 seconds to let the eyes get used to the feeble light, we will notice that the horizontal quadrants emit a light flicker, whereas the vertical are completely dark. On turning the crank to the left the flicker relocates to the vertical quadrants, whereas the horizontal ones now remain dark. Looking even more attentively at the scene, we will notice an essential qualitative difference between what happens in the left and the right quadrant (i.e. the upper and the lower one when the crank is turned to the left). The flicker in one horizontal quadrant is directed from the metal sectors outwards, in the other one inwards. In other words, in the left quadrant the metal sectors are dark and the flickering light glows around them, but in the right quadrant the metal sectors are illuminated and around them it is dark.
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

The metallic sectors in the image are drawn as a whole, and not individually, because the light phenomenon appears as a whole; more precisely, as two wholes, one left and one right, and not individually in the sectors.

P.S. Please find a Wimshurst machine, see this phenomenon and then tell me which side would you call plus or positive and which side would you call minus or negative?

Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 27/11/2019 09:03:11
Here is an experiment which if you make it and see the phenomenon, you should be silly to claim further that it is arbitrary.

If we rotate the discs of a Wimshurst machine by turning the crank manually to the right in a dark room (the most noticeable results can be seen at night in a room with a little exterior street light entering it), and if we do this for at least 10-15 seconds to let the eyes get used to the feeble light, we will notice that the horizontal quadrants emit a light flicker, whereas the vertical are completely dark. On turning the crank to the left the flicker relocates to the vertical quadrants, whereas the horizontal ones now remain dark. Looking even more attentively at the scene, we will notice an essential qualitative difference between what happens in the left and the right quadrant (i.e. the upper and the lower one when the crank is turned to the left). The flicker in one horizontal quadrant is directed from the metal sectors outwards, in the other one inwards. In other words, in the left quadrant the metal sectors are dark and the flickering light glows around them, but in the right quadrant the metal sectors are illuminated and around them it is dark.

(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=78153.0;attach=29850;image)

The metallic sectors in the image are drawn as a whole, and not individually, because the light phenomenon appears as a whole; more precisely, as two wholes, one left and one right, and not individually in the sectors.

P.S. Please find a Wimshurst machine, see this phenomenon and then tell me which side would you call plus or positive and which side would you call minus or negative?
I think this experiment can show that there is properties difference between positive lectrical charge carriers and the negative ones. We already know that they have different mass. There may be other differences that we don't know yet, but we need evidence to assert that. According to history of science, the assignment of positive and negative type of electric charge is indeed arbitrary. The electron wasn't discovered yet by then.
I believe the crossing lines in the picture represent conducting shafts, but it doesn't clearly show which shaft is for the front disc and which one is for the rear disc.
Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/11/2019 09:34:40
How come first you say "it is nonsense" and then you say "even if you were right"?!!!
Because, even if you were right about electric current flowing from positive to negative, it is still nonsense to say that the direction of electrical current was not  set arbitrarily.

Do you not understand that?

" you should be silly to claim further that it is arbitrary."
That is still nonsense.

The decision of which polarity of electricity was positive and which was negative was an arbitrary decision.
At the time, they didn't know enough, so they just picked one as positive and the other negative.

Nothing you can do today will change that, will it?

So, it appears that you do not know what you are talking about.


Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/11/2019 10:46:07
It is also clear that you don't know how a wimshurst machine actually works.
The wiki article also fails to emphasise an important aspect of it.
They say "Any small charge on either of the two discs suffices to begin the charging process. Suppose, therefore, that the back disc has a small, net electrostatic charge. For concreteness, assume this charge is positive"
An that's not unreasonable; the disk are traditionally glass and that's fairly high up the triboelectric series. The same would be true if you used perspex / lucite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect#Triboelectric_series
However, there's nothing to stop someone making a machine where the disks are made from something near the bottom of the series.
Ebonite would have been one of the old fashioned choices and another fairly common one (in my day, though perhaps less to now) would have been to use two 12 inch records made from PVC.

Now, here's the bit that shows you are wrong.
If I made two wimshurst machines, one with glass disks and one with PVC disks, they would give opposite charges.

The choice of disk material is arbitrary.
And your observation- which you mistakenly think has some significance- would be reversed.

You should really learn about electricity before you try to tell everyone they are getting it wrong.
Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 20/12/2019 18:16:53
According to history of science, the assignment of positive and negative type of electric charge is indeed arbitrary.
"THEORIES OF AETHER AND ELECTRICITY - FROM THE AGE OF DESCARTES TO THE CLOSE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY" from E.T.Whittaker (1910)

"Some curiosity will naturally be felt as to the considerations which induced Franklin to attribute the positive character to vitreous rather than to resinous electricity. They seem to have been founded on a comparison of the brush discharges from conductors charged with the two electricities; when the electricity was resinous, the discharge was observed to spread over the surface of the opposite conductor "as if it flowed from it." Again, if a Leyden jar whose inner coating is electrified vitreously is discharged silently by a conductor, of whose pointed ends one is near the knob and the other near the outer coating, the point which is near the knob is seen in the dark to be illuminated with a star or globule, while the point which is near the outer coating is illuminated with a pencil of rays; which suggested to Franklin that the electric fluid, going from the inside to the outside of the jar, enters at the former point and issues from the latter. And yet again, in some cases the flame of a wax taper is blown away from a brass ball which is discharging vitreous electricity, and towards one which is discharging resinous electricity. But Franklin remarks that the interpretation of these observations is somewhat conjectural, and that whether vitreous or resinous electricity is the actual electric fluid is not certainly known." (pages 44-45)
I believe the crossing lines in the picture represent conducting shafts, but it doesn't clearly show which shaft is for the front disc and which one is for the rear disc.
It is irrelevant which of the crossed bars is at the front disc and which at the rear. If you turn the crank to the right, the described phenomenon will appear in the horizontal quadrants; if you turn the crank to the left, it will appear in the vertical quadrants. If you change the position of the bars, then the opposite will happen. More details you can find at the end of my book.
Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/12/2019 01:05:33
Are you deliberately ignoring the fact that an electrical discharge through air is largely carried by positive ions and that this is the opposite to the dominant charge carrier in metals- where the current is carried by electrons?
If it's not a matter of deliberately ignoring the facts, is it that you really really need to learn some science before you pretend that you can undermine it?

I see you are so  poorly acquainted with reality that you ignore the part of the work you cite which says "Franklin remarks that the interpretation of these observations is somewhat conjectural, and that whether vitreous or resinous electricity is the actual electric fluid is not certainly known.".

That's where Franklin himself says it is arbitrary
Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 01/01/2020 12:54:22
An that's not unreasonable; the disk are traditionally glass and that's fairly high up the triboelectric series. The same would be true if you used perspex / lucite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triboelectric_effect#Triboelectric_series
However, there's nothing to stop someone making a machine where the disks are made from something near the bottom of the series.
Ebonite would have been one of the old fashioned choices and another fairly common one (in my day, though perhaps less to now) would have been to use two 12 inch records made from PVC.

Now, here's the bit that shows you are wrong.
If I made two wimshurst machines, one with glass disks and one with PVC disks, they would give opposite charges.

The choice of disk material is arbitrary.
And your observation- which you mistakenly think has some significance- would be reversed.

You should really learn about electricity before you try to tell everyone they are getting it wrong.
You don't know what you are talking about. The Wimshurst machine has nothing to do with triboelectricity, but with influence. That's why Wimshurst, Bonetti, Holtz, Toepler etc. are called influence machines. The disk material is of no importance at all as long as it is a dielectric material.

As I said before, see the described phenomenon in the dark by yourself and then tell me which side would you call plus or positive and which side would you call minus or negative?

But no, you won't do that and you won't answer my question because you know very well that you can do nothing against the truth.

In my book I have a separate supplement about the Wimshurst machine. The book is downloadable free of charge at academia.edu.
Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Origin on 01/01/2020 14:12:46
In my book I have a separate supplement about the Wimshurst machine. The book is downloadable free of charge at academia.edu.
You wrote a book?!?  Why would you write a book on a subject you shown to have so little knowledge?

I can see why it is free...
Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 06/01/2020 07:43:07
You wrote a book?!?  Why would you write a book on a subject you shown to have so little knowledge?

I can see why it is free...
As I see from your profile, you are 6 months present on this forum and you haven't started a single topic. You have nothing to say, pal.
Comments such as yours I consider as trolling.
Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Hayseed on 20/01/2020 15:36:49
Current is the integrated directional result of zillions of intermittences. (like light)

Giving an alignment of E and M.   Which does the real work.

Current just lines the charge up, the alignment is the energy's path.

The charge hardly moves.   And that charge has a duty cycle.  It's only part of the current when it is going in the common direction,.........it takes turns......it's part of the current for a while, and then not part of the current while colliding and rebounding.  Only when it resets, turns and joins the rest, does it become part of the current again.
Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2020 18:40:51
You wrote a book?!?  Why would you write a book on a subject you shown to have so little knowledge?

I can see why it is free...
As I see from your profile, you are 6 months present on this forum and you haven't started a single topic. You have nothing to say, pal.
Comments such as yours I consider as trolling.
You wrote a book?!?  Why would you write a book on a subject you shown to have so little knowledge?

I can see why it is free...
Title: Re: A new explanation of the electric current
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2020 18:44:02
You don't know what you are talking about.
Guess again.
Without frictional (or some other) charging to get it to start, the machine simply can't work.

In fact, if you make one with shellac disks, the charge is the opposite of the one you get with glass.
Nothing you say changes that.

It's you who doesn't know what you are talking about.