Loner I wrote this yesterday but couldn't post it bcause the server went down again. Anyway if it's drifted of topic since then - at least it's still here on record.
aetherevarising, I am not ignoring you, but I must start in this area with a "One at a time" approach.
Actually you
are ignoring me. But I really don't mind. I'll just answer you anyway. LOL
I could agree with the "Non-ionic" propagation of "Energy",
.
What exactly do you agree with here? Wiki's definition of nonionic is this.
Adj
1. nonionic - not converted into ions nonionised, unionised,
2. nonionic - not ionic; "a nonionic substance" nonpolar
ionic - containing or involving or occurring in the form of ions; "ionic charge"; "ionic crystals"; "ionic hydrogen"So. Presumably then the nonionic propagation of 'energy' would be - the propagation of energy by
unpolarised charge.Yet. As I understand it, the displacement current that lights the neon light must surely have some kind of polarised charge as it can interact with the ionised atoms in that neon? So why so you say it 'must be without a charge'?
Now, the second and third part of what you said. (Typed?) Unknowingly, you have stepped into an argument that we have had going for a little while now... A Non-ionic charge is a good indicator of where my side comes in. There is NO charge, in the common sense of the term, as far as a comparison with the electrical charge of an electron or positron. (I"ll avoid the center, for this explanation of my point.) This is where so much confusion and difficulty comes in, as there IS a charge, but not a magnetic field generating type of charge.
Not sure why you draw the distinction here Loner. We KNOW that magnetic fields are generated in an electromagnetic interaction - just as we KNOW that electric fields are generated - simultaneously - subject only to the change in either the one or the other.
Actually, this part we all agree on,
So. Back to that question. I'm actually not at all sure who it is that makes up this school of thought - that also includes just about everyone all of whom have reached a consensus that displacement current cannot be magnetic in it's material. I'm not actually sure that there IS concensus.
but WHAT that charge consists of, well, I doubt anyone would want to hear all the crazy, ignorant things being said right now. Short Version... I am on the side that there is a "Tie-In" to part of the RE effect and that it is closer to an "Electrical" type of field but propagated in the aether, and others want to convince me it is a "Tie-In" to aether basis of gravitational field, but being produced only during the "Change", it manifests itself this way. I disagree with the others, but cannot prove them wrong, yet. (We are working on this, much to my regret. Kills all my other "Fun" stuff for a while.)
To start with RE is what? Radiant energy? And then the effect is what? Displacement current? I would put money on it that that current flow - regardless of it's material property - is always an electric effect. This because it is the thing that moves through space as a result of the moving magnetic fields. By contrast magnetic fields don't move through space. They're localised in material. Only current flows through space. By definition current flow is the 'electric' part of the electromagnetic interaction - defined by inductive laws. Therefore - call it displacement current or radiant energy or anything you like. If it moves through space then it's the result of changing magnetic fields that proceeded it and generated it. And again. Those magnetic fields invariably collapse in a localised area of space.
My question is this, "Do you firmly believe that the dielectric is polarized with an actual standard charge, without any charge carriers?" This is what I would consider a profound statement, as it belies the electron as the source of the charge, completely. (I won't start on a description of lepton charge effects here.)
. What other leptons are there - apart from an electron - that could possibly account for displacement current? I am also reasonably sure that a dialectric certainly has a polarised condition. Not sure how the material is doped or arranged. But I know that it can resist current flow that has a 'like' charge. And I'm sure too that the polarised condition of the dielectric is determined by the valence condition of it's electrons. There's got to be an association. The hell of it is that if the electron is the 'charge' carrier of displacement or any current then it can only ever carry a positive charge which leaves out exactly one entire half of the charge potential evident in current flow.
The reason I am leaning to the different effects here is that many EE's have done "Extensive" bench tests and many pulse tests of inductors, and yet the charge rates and values are exactly described, relative to standard "electron" charge. If the displacement Current, meaning only the one around a wire, for now, were involved in the mag field creation, the effects of altering this would be MUCH easier to detect. I hope you see where I am going with this.
Frankly if you all understand this - I don't. Are you saying that the magnetic fields around the wire are understood to have an embarrassing dearth of electrons? Therefore if this is the source or displacement current then it would defy your earlier claim that that electrons or some such lepton are required for current flow?
To give a simple "Hint" of where this can be researched easily, think of what you get with a simple Tesla Setup, through a spark gap and transformer. This type of "Energy" is NOT magnetically coupled in the standard sense, and the output IS different than standard conduction current.
Again. You state - unequivocally - that it is NOT magnetically coupled. I am entirely satisfied that the collapsing fields around the coil or wire or whatever conductive material is associated with this - is responsible for the movement of that flux through a spark gap. Therefore it IS magnetically coupled. Current is always the result of changing magnetic fields. And I would go further to propose that the 'spark' evident in that 'spark gap' IS the substance of the current that is flowing in the wire. Just - outside of the wire it can, as one of it's potentials, be visible. And we all know that what is evident as a spark - whatever else it is - it's certainly NOT electrons.
(If you were to, just for an hour, accept this as fact, then re-read certain Tesla patents, certain circuit behavior makes a lot more sense. I don't expect anyone to do that, however.) Most have seen the simple experiment where the fact is proven that "Current" flows in both directions. Sticking with standard theory, the electron charge is passing out of the negative, heading to the positive. The positive to negative charge is not actually defined properly in modern textbooks, although the fact of it's existence is now accepted. Could these two attributes be connected? (I can't even offer that part of the theory, yet.)
Loner. If you accept that displacement or any current is bipolar - being able to move in either direction and determined only by the applied voltage - or direction of the changing magnetic fields - then you'd have no conflicts here. But then you'd also have to concede that - whatever else current is - it is NOT electrons. They've got a charge which will not only incline them to move against each other but it would also limit their general direction to only ever move towards a positive charge.
Actually - by the same token if they are repelled by a negative voltage to move anticlockwise, say, then they'd be attracted by a postive voltage to move in that same direction. Effectively current made up of a monopole - whatever it's charge - would only be able to flow in one direction.
Regards,
Rosemary
added
Author
Topic: Displacement Current - Does it Exist? (Read 139857 times)
