[sorincosofret (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

I doubt that anyone has ever made an electroscope sensitive enough to detect just 12 volts. They usually work with thousands of volts.
Your second experiment basicly shows that your electroscope doesn't work.
All you have done is show that your detector isn't very sensitive and that you don't understand the physics involved.

[lyner]

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.

Let's be accurate for starters. An emf is induced, actually. The amount of current flowing depends entirely upon the impedance of the circuit.

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.

Glad you're at the forefront of Science, as usual. I had the operation of a Whimhurst Machine explained to me in 1957 in a very satisfactory (by my present standards) way.

BTW, why don't you use the EHT generator in the TV directly, instead of involving the CRT? Wear your rubber wellies, though.

[sorincosofret (OP)]

An electroscope is not a instrument to detect ,,Voltage". Revise your knowledge in this field. An electroscope is able to detect a ,,charge" according to actual and accepted interpretation. I don't think that rubbing two surfaces you will be able to measure a potential difference of 0.1 V, but despite this, an electroscope is able to feel this ,,charge". In case of an open circuit the charge does not move in the open circuit with already explained consequences.

[Bored chemist]

An electroscope has a near constant capacitance and so the charge and the voltage are directly proportional to one annother.
I have seen electroscopes calibrated in terms of voltage. You could calibrate one for charge, but that's not something I have ever seen. The situation is analagous to galvanometers being used to measure voltage (with a series resistor) or current (with a shunt resistor); you can't really have one without the other.
Don't tell me that I need to revise my knowledge in this, or any other field, until you understand it yourself.

For example, while it's well known that combing your hair can generate thousands of volts you are ill informed enough to say "I don't think that rubbing two surfaces you will be able to measure a potential difference of 0.1 V"

Stop trying to reconstruct physics until you have learned and understood some.

[sorincosofret (OP)]

You are talking nonsense. A electroscope is not a capacitor, where in principle there is the possibility to have two different charge on every plate. For example, in case of induced charge you don't have a ,,charge" on the electroscope. Actual electrostatic ,,admit" a separation of charge, even this is a absurdity as is presented in the book. When you will be able to measure the potential of a electroscope charged by induction, then come and make comments. 

[Bored chemist]

"You are talking nonsense. "
I propose that we have a vote on that.
Please would those who read this post "Bored" or Sorin" for whichever you think is talking nonsense.
I predict a lot more Sorins than Boreds.
In the meantime, Sorin, please learn some physics. Any conductor has a capacitance.

[sorincosofret (OP)]

I have time to wait the vote of the history. For the moment I have to mach to do at my theory instead of searching votes to persons who know 5% from my theory. If the support of the crowd give you satisfaction, you can search for adepts.
But you should know something.... the support of the crowd will help you if you are on the right way or if you are able to fool the crowd.
But, if the crowd realise that you are a cheater...... you may have surprises.
As it can be seen, there are no other scientific comments, so it's time to leave this post to fall down in this list......

[lyner]

A electroscope is not a capacitor,

Don't be daft. EVERYTHING has capacity. An electroscope will have a capacity to Earth of several pF. It STORES charge, doesn't it? The leaves stay up when you leave it alone.

[Bikerman]

If you want a vote, bored, then OK. Sorin is talking crap.

[sorincosofret (OP)]

It depends what capacity means for you. An electroscope does not have a capacity as a capacitor has; the foils are in contact so no ,,opposite" charge accumulate on them. In the frame of actual theory, both foil can be simultaneously negative or simultaneously positive. The capacitor is completely different: a plate is positive and the other is negative.

[Bored chemist]

I have time to wait the vote of the history. 
But you should know something.... the support of the crowd will help you if you are on the right way or if you are able to fool the crowd.
But, if the crowd realise that you are a cheater...... you may have surprises.
As it can be seen, there are no other scientific comments, so it's time to leave this post to fall down in this list......

OK so you think the people here are easy to fool do you? I wouldn't insult them that way.
Also you seem not to have noticed that I did make a scientific comment. All conductors have a capacitance.

Capacitance is a perfectly well understood concept in physics. It isn't a matter of "what capacity means to you", it's a matter of what it means. As sophiecentaur pointed out, the thing stores charge.


You seem to think that the foils have something to do with this and, as expected, you are wrong.

Any more votes?

[lyner]

It depends what capacity means for you. An electroscope does not have a capacity as a capacitor has; the foils are in contact so no ,,opposite" charge accumulate on them. In the frame of actual theory, both foil can be simultaneously negative or simultaneously positive. The capacitor is completely different: a plate is positive and the other is negative.

I wrote "capacity to Earth" which is what I meant. That is so well defined as not to need further explanation. Learn some basics.

BC: actually, as the foils part, the capacity of the electroscope (TO EARTH - for sorin's sake) will increase a bit because the effective size will increase. There is also an energy argument which applies, I think. The foils opening involves GPE increasing so the Electric Potential  V must reduce a finite amount - so C must have increased. Now don't get cross about that and threaten to write a book!  []

[sorincosofret (OP)]

How many capacitor are working with a plate and using Earth as secondary plate ? When I will see these kind of device working, I will agree with you.

[Bored chemist]

Sorin,
Everyone who ever walked across a nylon carpet on a dry Winter's day and got a static shock was a capacitor with the earth as the other plate.
So I presume you believe us now.

Just for the record, the earth isn't important either- its a standard exercise in electrostatics to calculate the capacitance of an isolated sphere.
It seems the institute of physics believe me too.
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0031-9120/23/1/103
If anyone has an account that lets them copy the summary of that article I'd quite like to see it.

(Sophiecentaur I wrote "near constant capacitance" for a reason, so I have nothing to get cross about)

[lyner]

Electric potential at a point is actually defined as the Energy per Coulomb which would be needed to bring a positive charge to that point from an infinite distance away. Capacity relates directly to that. You don't need plates to have capactitance but, if you want a lot of capacitance, you need two plates, close enough together and of enough area. Read about electrmagnetic theory sorin. Or will you be writing your own book on it, perhaps? Best to start with no knowledge at all then.