[alancalverd]

It is still not clear to me why an alternating current will induce a unipolar static charge on a nearby conductor.

[paul cotter]

A small voltage like that could be coming from any number of extraneous influences. At that level the signal to noise ratio is low.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A small voltage like that could be coming from any number of extraneous influences. At that level the signal to noise ratio is low.

The signal to noise ratio is high enough, if you compare between the voltage reading with and without the alternating current. Also the comparison between sodium chloride and potassium chloride with alternating current.
We can even use signal much weaker than that in practical applications.

For a 10-degree Celsius temperature difference, a Type K thermocouple will generate approximately 0.41 millivolts (mV).

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When dealing with low millivolt readings one has to be very careful to eliminate all extraneous influences and doing this is by no means simple. Even two different metals with a degree of surface oxidation can produce voltages in those ranges. As I said previously a vacuum chamber, sealed fluid containers, optimum insulated stands(Alan's polyethylene) and now I add another condition, a double layer Faraday screen are the minimum to do this with good signal to noise ratio. There could well be extra requirements to get a true result, I don't know as I am not an experimental physicist.

My video clearly shows that the only applied difference that makes the voltage reading almost doubled in potassium chloride solution is the 1 Ampere alternating current.


Temperature measurements using thermocouple generated voltage can be done reliably with a very simple setup.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is still not clear to me why an alternating current will induce a unipolar static charge on a nearby conductor.

You can compare with unipolar voltage generated by a thermocouple by increasing the temperature difference between its ends. IMO, the underlying mechanisms are similar.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is way more likely that you dealing with artefacts from environmental effects rather than science has missed something as fundamental as this.

My experiment is simple enough to be replicated by anyone else. Let's see how many of you can get the same results as mine.
Do you find any problem with my theoretical background?

I think that my theoretical background for this experiment is pretty solid and straight forward.

[paul cotter]

Hamdani, i have no intention of joining another long winded discussion that goes nowhere. I am going say one more time what I think and then leave this topic. When you are dealing with low millivolt readings it is essential to make sure you are not dealing with some artefact of the local environment. I have already stated what I think would be the minimum requirements to avoid spurious readings and as I am not an experimental physicist I may have missed other necessary conditions. The history of science reveals a multitude of misleading of experiments where not all factors were taken into account. If I was to set up such an experiment I would have used Teflon stands until Alan pointed out that such a procedure would be prone to error- one small example of where thing could go wrong and in experimental science it is imperative to eliminate all possible contamination.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We will study the hypothesis that magnetic force is not only affected by the magnitude of electric charge that moves inside a conductor (or convector), but also affected by the mass of the particle.

A very simple experiment that will disabuse you of this conclusion would be to measure the magnetic field produced by a given current  around wires of materials with different Hall coefficients. I think you will find that the nature of the charge carrier is irrelevant. 

What convinced you that the nature of the charge carrier is irrelevant?
What's wrong with three tables I posted here? (Reply #366)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Hamdani, i have no intention of joining another long winded discussion that goes nowhere.

This discussion will go nowhere if we stop questioning and experimenting in order to identify false assumptions and invalid reasonings, also to clear up uncertainties. We don't make progress if we are already satisfied with existing explanations and stop looking for some better alternatives.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

When you are dealing with low millivolt readings it is essential to make sure you are not dealing with some artefact of the local environment. I have already stated what I think would be the minimum requirements to avoid spurious readings and as I am not an experimental physicist I may have missed other necessary conditions. The history of science reveals a multitude of misleading of experiments where not all factors were taken into account. If I was to set up such an experiment I would have used Teflon stands until Alan pointed out that such a procedure would be prone to error- one small example of where thing could go wrong and in experimental science it is imperative to eliminate all possible contamination.

The purpose of the experiments I posted here is to prove the concept described in the theoretical background, which predicted that there's non-zero effect from the type of the current carrying charges on the generated electromotive force to a test charged particle. The design as an electrodynamic balance is to amplify the signal while reducing the noise, similar to Wheatstone bridge.
If you think that my theoretical background leads to wrong conclusion, which proposition is the most suspicious?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Unexpected results come from false assumptions. The situation here clearly shows the case.
Some of us might think that the experimental results I've shown are unexpected. The next step for them is to identify which assumptions used to predict the results are the false one.
Some others might think that the experimental results I've shown are expected. The next step for them is to identify what other predictions can be made using the same set of assumptions, and where they start to break down.

[alancalverd]

Your primary assumption is that you have measured what you think you have measured.

Your secondary assumption is that an alternating magnetic field can induce a unidirectional charge transfer between nearby conductors - in other words, that transformers are selfrectifying.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Your primary assumption is that you have measured what you think you have measured.

I need to make assumption that my Voltmeter is reliable. I justified this assumption by measuring other electrical sources first, like batteries and USB charger. So far, I found no indication that it's false.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Your secondary assumption is that an alternating magnetic field can induce a unidirectional charge transfer between nearby conductors - in other words, that transformers are selfrectifying.

Do you disagree with my third table of electrodynamic force?
What do you think is the correct values there?

The third table shows the force experienced by test particle, which is simply the multiplication of each cell in both tables above.
   v+   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2     3     4
v-                              
-4       0    -3   -4   -3    0    5   12   21   32
-3       4     0   -2   -2    0    4   10   18   28
-2       8     3    0   -1    0    3     8   15   24
-1      12    6    2    0    0    2     6   12   20
0       16    9    4    1    0    1     4     9   16
1       20   12   6    2    0    0     2     6   12
2       24   15   8    3    0   -1     0    3     8
3       28   18   10   4   0   -2    -2    0     4
4       32   21   12   5   0   -3    -4   -3     0

[alancalverd]

I need to make assumption that my Voltmeter is reliable. I justified this assumption by measuring other electrical sources first, like batteries and USB charger. So far, I found no indication that it's false.

Because they have a much lower source impedance and the readings are therefore not affected by the accumulation of static charge from unidentified sources or activities. Fact is that the voltage reference of a DVM is (or should be!) much more stable than the output of a battery or USB charger. 

[alancalverd]

The magnetic force on a charge is zero if the charge is stationary. You have confused the moving charges in your electrolyte with the distribution of charge between your capacitors.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The magnetic force on a charge is zero if the charge is stationary.

But non-zero if the wire moves relative to the charge. Note that my tables referred to electric current in a straight metal wire.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Most people learn about Maxwell's Equations in their final forms, which were written by Heaviside.

The Hidden Story Behind Maxwell?s Equations

It took Maxwell over 10 years and multiple papers to shape those equations in these final forms. The main difficulty was that Faraday?s field concept, on which his equations were based, was extremely hard to grasp. Maxwell had to rely on complicated mechanical models of molecular vortices in ether to come up with them. In this video, we will go through his heroic journey.

Timestamps:
0:00 - 0:42 Intro
0:43 - 3:47 Status of Electromagnetism at his time
3:48 - 5:06 Divergences and Flux
5:07 - 6:33 How did Maxwell derive the first two equations?
6:35 - 7:05  Limitations of hydrodynamics approach
7:06 - 7:49 Molecular's vortices theory
7:50 - 10:22 How did Maxwell derive the last two equations?
10:23 - 10:47 Speed of light
10:48 - 12:05 Maxwell's later abstract approach
12:06 - 13:49 Why was his theory discarded by colleagues?
13:50 - 14:48 Legacy of his equations

As many of you have correctly pointed out(many thanks for that), several embarassing typos have crept into the video. Here are some of the corrections:

a. At 5:00, the clockwise curl should be negative, while the counterclockwise curl positive.
b.  At 10:00, "magnetic" should be "electric".
c. At 10:21, displacement current (D) should be replaced with current density (J).
d. In the displayed Maxwell equations, the propotional sign should have been replaced with the full equation.
e. At 6:27, Laplace should be replaced by Lagrange.

We would also like to add some remarks:

a. Many animations, especially about divergences and flux, are borrowed from 3blue1brown channel. We have credited them in description but we should have also done in the video. We apologize for that, and make sure to correct it in coming videos.

b. We do have a section regarding Oliver Heaviside's contribution at 14:08. Unfortunately, we are still not convinced that Maxwell equations should be renamed "Maxwell-Heaviside" equations. But, we will do more research, and maybe even change our mind:)

[alancalverd]

But non-zero if the wire moves relative to the charge.

Which doesn't happen in your experiment.

Your theoretical approach is incorrect. The current in the wire does not depend on the difference between drift velocities. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But non-zero if the wire moves relative to the charge.

Which doesn't happen in your experiment.

Your theoretical approach is incorrect. The current in the wire does not depend on the difference between drift velocities. 

How do you think the alternating current flows in the salt solutions?