[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

MODERATOR WARNING:
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 7741 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). 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 7474 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”.]

[Bored chemist]

one of the basic principles of nature is that the movement is always from the positive to the negative

That logical fallacy is called "begging the question".

Also...

shows you are wrong.

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

one of the basic principles of nature is that the movement is always from the positive to the negative

That 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)

[syhprum]

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. 

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

I take it that you have conceded defeat and that cathode rays are cathode rays.

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

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:

vacuum tube beam.GIF (1.35 kB . 450x100 - viewed 6449 times)

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

Are you ready to bet with me on this?
I am ready.

I'm not taking your money, but feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself.

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

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 .

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.
Will you bet with me on this?
And please, take my money this time.

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

Are you ready to bet with me on this?
I am ready.

I'm not taking your money, but feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself.

The time will tell who is making a fool of himself.

[Bored chemist]

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 .

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.
Will you bet with me on this?
And please, take my money this time.

Please send the money to a charity of your choice.
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.

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

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 .

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.
Will you bet with me on this?
And please, take my money this time.

Please send the money to a charity of your choice.
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.

All CRTs which are in commercial use are almost ideally symmetrical. That's why the beam is not bent.
No, I am not a charitable person. I want to give my money to you.

[Bored chemist]

How would an electron flying through space "know" where the walls of the container are in order to change path?

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

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:

water tornados.jpg (12.93 kB . 280x250 - viewed 5053 times)

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?!

[Bored chemist]

Do you really think that water is the same as a vacuum?

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.

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

Do you really think that water is the same as a vacuum?

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.

It is not an empty space literally. It is full of electricity.

[Bored chemist]

About 58 seconds into this video they show an image of a deep electron beam weld.

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.

[Bored chemist]

It is full of electricity.

That has no meaning.