studiot

I am still not clear what you mean by high frequency.?? There is a reason why mains frequency is set at the 50/60 Hz level. As frequency rises, the size of (frequency sensitive) components decreases. This is particularly seen with inductive components, coils, chokes and transformers. This makes them smaller lighter in weight and cheaper. Set against this arises the need for specially tuned circuits to carry the electricity. So 50/60Hz mains is set where large heavy transformers can be founded on the ground. In the aircraft industry 400/440 hz is common which saves a great deal of weight and bulk in an aircraft. The trade off is fancier wiring. Once you get into the kilohertz and above range tuned transmission lines are needed, which are impractical for long runs. So the efficiency saving trade off favouirs ultrasonic motors, which are directly coupled and close to their power source. But the capacitance involved in longer transmission becomes significant.

I have a Hitachi mini usb 'simple drive' that has an auxiliary power input jack (circled). But I don't know what voltage is required, probably 5v or 12v. Can anyone help?

I'm very glad to see you are asking a sensible question instead of pushing nonsense from cranks. +1 But beware there are many cranks using/hiding behind the Tesla brand. No Tesla didn't have an audio amplifier or an oscilloscope. But he did use coils. The system was known as a 'spark gap device'. Bsically the making and breaking of a mechanical contact causes electrical oscillations in an inductive system. The faster the contats make and break, the higher the voltage and the frequency. https://teslaresearch.jimdo.com/invention-of-radio/spark-gap-transmitter/ Remember also what they called high frequency would not be regarded as very high today. Nowadays the High Frequency band (HF) is officially in the 3Mhz to 30 Mhz range which is not very high compared to a mobile phone in the 1 to 15 giga hertz range. Final comment, when you break the contacts a phenomenon called inductive backswing occurs. This can be a very high voltage and is the basis of creating several hundred volts in an automotive distributor. These several hundred volts are then transformed to several kilovolts by the 'automotive coil' acting as a transformer.

It seems to me that quite a lot can be said about a theory of everything, without giving away any secrets. In particular some idea of the scope and coverage of this 'theory' could be offered, without details. For instance Can it tell me how a racing pigeon, a humming bird a bee and an aeroplane fly? Can it tell me where stromatolites come from? Can it tell me how heavy is the heaviest negatively charge particle? Can it tell which force on a given mass is greater , the electric or gravitational and by how much ? If not then what can it tell me?

The belief of the golden ratio cult is that the (correct) golden ratio is fundamental to everything in the universe. Is it difficult to continue when you are rumbled early on?

You really should read this book, written in 1974. Fields of Force Berkson. He examines in minute detail the development of and the relationship between Fields and Ethers over some 500 years. Note from sample in the extract just how many ethers there have been proposed, and how different they are. Newton, Descartes, Fresnel, Farady, Stokes, Kelvin, Lorenz, Einstein, Maxwell, Planck and many others. They all had a go. There are extended answers to the question in your later posts that I have not attempted because the answers are too long for the forum. As a matter of interest the word Field(s) appears in your title. What do you understand by a Field in Physics and Mathematics ? And do you know that these sciences use very different definitions and concepts of 'fields'? As a matter of interest do you/ can you obtain any of the references I have offered?

Excellents points. I would add that for CRTs magnetic deflection was generally used for television purposes and electrostatic for scope type displays. Here are some details and pics of the very first scope I owned - and ex military type 13a, which I bought in 1968. https://www.thevalvepage.com/testeq/hartley/13a/13a.htm

Is this another golden ratio windup? At least get the number correct.

Yes you are right, it was Edinburgh, I must have misunderstood my tour guide. Thank you for pointing that out. +1 However he was at originally at Aberdeen, and sacked. https://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/j.s.reid/pages/Maxwell/ This gives me a mental picture of a ' Feynman Demon' furiously scribbling his diagrams on a blackboard in that vaccum, in order to create all that activity and hot air. Feynman Demon = Son of Maxwell's Demon.

I think that either cosmology and/or the IT industry are trying to take over all other disciplines. And that they have made a pretty poor fist of those they have already penetrated. And there, Mr Bond, you have my opinion in a nutshell.

Maxwell was unfortunate in several ways. Last month I was doing a guided tour of the city where he was born and became a university lecturer. But they sacked him. Which is why he went to Edinburgh. There he did his best and most famous work. Unfortunately he died young, before he could finish his works. There are many aspects you need to know including Helmholtz paper. One other important English word is imponderable. This meant and still means scientifically without inertia (mass). Ponderable is with inertia. The mid 19 century hymns introduced it to mean unthinkable or unknowable and this has come to be it modern popular meaning.

So there never was a hidden agenda. +1 However the question of the word ether deserves clarification since it has enjoyed many meanings (not unconnected) over the millenia. The modern word ether comes to us (English) from the ancient Greek aither meaning the upper air. It was a substance believed to occupy space beyond the moon and cotnain the planets and stars. It entered Old English as edder and Old French as ether. It then moved on to Middle English as aether but now came to mean The region of clear space above the clouds. Passing on to modern English the diphthong was dropped and the word came to be ether. Because Greek, Norse and Saxon and Christian heaven's were located in this reagion the word etherial came to be associated with things heavenly/spiritual and of tenuous substance. This was the view of Newton and Descartes - not an all pervading ether but a medium to support the transmission of light rays. Their theories were not wave theories. Later scientists (Fresnel) proposed a 'lumineferous aether' (note the old spelling returning) as a specific change to an all pervading immaterial substance to support wave motion, when Young's wave theory had become ascendant. This was again a narrowing down of the, term tightening up the specification as both experimental and mathematical knowledge improved/increased. At this time Chemistry was developing and first a substance, then a class of substances, was discovered which is very volatile so quickly evaporates and dissipates into the air. They called this ether and later, ethers following the old idea of insubstantiality. Other scientists developed several ether models (eg Maxwell) in the late 19 century when the study of light really got going. Most of these facts are recorded in the links I have already provided. So there you have it, quiet. This is why anyone using the term needs to be carefully spelled out when used and why many responders have asked exactly what 'ether' you mean.

Indeed, the subject was called electron ballistics in the UK and was vital to the design and production of all valves. +1 Large sections of repected texts of the era were devoted to the subject eg Electron Physics and Technology Thomson (not the JJ) & Callick Principles of Electronics Gavin & Houldin Both from English Universities Press And slightly later from America (1967) Owen and Keaton devote nearly a the wole of volume 2 of a thre volume tome Fundamentals of Electronics Harper Row to it.

Was it though? But I did say we need to carefully distinguish between Relativity and Quantum effects. Many mix them up in relation to this subject and its history. Nobel winner Frank Wilczek has, of coursed re-introiduced an ether of his own in QFT.

Yes a transmission model, but as I keep pointing out, not a totally successful model for the interaction with matter. Further we should make a distinction between the connection of light to Relativity and The connection of light to Quantum Mechanics.

Before you do that second line read this. Fresnel was the first to propose a luminerferous aether, named as such in 1818 nearly half a century before Maxwell showed that electromagnetic fields are capable of supporting waves and longer before Hertz proved it experimentally. But centuries before this some sort of transmission medium was assumed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether I am ignoring all the off topic stuff about modern cosmological theories.

It is easy to loose sight of the ingenuity of the natural universe and in this case human ingenuity. We should guard against this and not try to force our limited theories on what we observe. This applies to both sides of the discussion. Firstly let us dispel this failure of logic, both from a theoretical point of view and a phenomenological one. The logical progression of the above runs Waves can be regarded as a sequence of phase linked single oscillators, each one performing its activity in turn. Many working model demonstation machines are constructed like this. For this model to be successful there must be oscillators. What you call the substrate, and most call the medium, comprises this sequence of oscillators. Now for some human igenuity. Why is it necessary for all these oscillators to exist, even when they are not oscillating? Why can they not pop up into place like ducks in a shooting gallery when they are needed. And pop down again when they are no (ie the wave has passed their location) ? Alternatively why can they not be laid like the railway tracks in the Wallace & Grommit movie, directly infront of the travelling train or wave? And pulled up again behind the train. One classical view of EM radiation is that "It carries its own medium along with it", so doesn't need an inplace medium lying around like sound does. Very neat and tidy, don't you think? It is even possible to construct a simple mechanical model to demonstrate this. Suppose you had a conveyor belt carrying ducks of graded height, graded according to a wave pattern. The ducks generally lie flat(horizontal) but flip up just before arriving at a target point and flip down again immediately after passing it. If you watched this point through a rifle sight you would observe a sinuous wave passing, going up and down in height (amplitude). But if you sighted anywhere else along the gallery you would see nothing. So you would have to conclude that there is no permanent medium along the gallery. Now you have also said. No this is not true, even by your own words and constitutes a failure of logic since it should read "all other tests except for the existence of a medium" Otherwise you cannot take the (logical) step/deduction Therefore there must be a medium. This was indeed the situation in the early part of the 19 century, but the situation changed dramatically with the discovery of the photoelectric effect and became no longer true. There was no known mechanism for the threshold to occur with any known wave equation. Or there was no known wave equation that could model the threshold. (Note some thresholds do occur in wave theory for example total internal reflection and all sorts of ideas like this were examined.) So we then had a failure of EM radiation to act in accordance with expectations to explain. The description I posted about the Maxwell mechanical vortex theory of a medium does not have these properties. Further in that source in a part I did not post, Maxwell himself is reported as saying that he derived to to exactly fit his famous four equations, But that he could not accept it as it was too cumbersome and that there must be therefore some other explanation. Post#5 here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117405-currents-and-symmetry/

Indeed a good one, as is polymorphism in Sulphur. https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00204149/document

So we have a ring of conductive material eg a hoop of wire? This ring is charged to a value of -2q, where q is much larger than the charge on one electron. So it is not electrically neutral then disconnected from the source of charge but insulated from the rest of the universe? The ring is then rotated with some (steady ?) velocity v ? Why should this scenario result in a magnetic field? Are you trying to experiment with homopolar motors and generators AKA a Faraday Disk?

Ok so you don't care enough about your question to return and check for answers. But it's been so much fun for others seeing what ideas they can come up with. So thanks for the question. +1 My contribution is to say metal? Well perhap not metal, but metal ore. Dry it out. All earth materials increase in density as they dry. They end result what is known as dry density, which is then the maximum density for that solid.

Which was why I asked about size earlier on. Quiet please indicate the size of the systems you are contemplating, along with the eventual direction/destination of your enquiry. Have I mentioned Rowland's ring theory in relation to magentism before?

Phlogiston was never a 'good' theory. The evidence against it had already been obtained and confirmed by others for nearly 100 years before the word phlogiston was invented. The'theory' required the additiona proposition (theory with no experimental backup) of negative weight to support it. https://eic.rsc.org/feature/the-logic-of-phlogiston/2000126.article

But the 19 century scientists didn't just accept or reject an aether. They calculated consequences according to their best Science and then proposed tests, which they carried out to the best of their ability. A real shining example of progress via the scientific method. Furthermore they knew the limits of their abiltiy. They knew that the experiments of Fizeau were against calculations carried out by neglecting higher order terms in series and so were first order. They were only able to measure the effects of higher order terms at the very end of the century. It was these later experiments that confirmed the lack of aether and lead to a search for other explanations. By the way, siecle is the French word for century.

Surely one of the original matters which ushered in QM contradicts this, since this is not a measurement issue. I am referring to the 'photoelectric effect'.

Indeed so, finally a response to what I said in my first reply. You have put in a lot of good effort in creating this paper and I have tried to engage in constructive discussion but I find it very disappointing that you seem like a marathon runner who, have covered the first 26 miles has decided to sit on a milestone and admire the scenery rather than complete the course in not supporting your work. So I will leave you and your thread there.