Jump to content

Electrons? Electrons in Electricity?


Windevoid
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ok, this should be easy then.

 

Please post the equation of E = E(time, density, magnetism, distance, and dielectricity) and demonstrate how well it works in many of the most common uses of energy.

 

I'll start with 2 easy ones.

 

1) I drop a golf ball from a height of 2 m. How much kinetic energy does it have when it hits the ground.

 

2) I burn 0.5 mol of octane in an excess of oxygen (so no incomplete burning, it all goes to CO2), how much energy is released in this exothermic reaction?

 

------------

 

Oh, and it needs to be pointed out, that the above doesn't answer the question 'If electrons are not the charge carriers in conductors, what is?' at all. Energy and charge, while often related to one another, are not the same thing. This is pretty fundamental. Units of energy are Joules, units of electric charge are Coulombs. Definitely not the same thing.

Eric Dollard said that electrical energy is "magnetism" (current) multiplied by "dielectricity" (voltage).

Heaviside's version seems more complex and hard to understand. I don't exactly know the equations that what he says should turn into or be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't exactly know the equations that what he says should turn into or be.

So, the current model is more useful then. Since you don't even know the equations, and hence can't even make predictions, the current model that makes predictions -- and pretty darn good ones at that -- is clearly superior.

 

Case closed. Until there is a model that makes even better predictions, why would anyone be interested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eric Dollard said that electrical energy is "magnetism" (current) multiplied by "dielectricity" (voltage).

Heaviside's version seems more complex and hard to understand. I don't exactly know the equations that what he says should turn into or be.

You can read the things the scientists say at Borderland Research Wiki.

So, the current model is more useful then. Since you don't even know the equations, and hence can't even make predictions, the current model that makes predictions -- and pretty darn good ones at that -- is clearly superior.

 

Case closed. Until there is a model that makes even better predictions, why would anyone be interested?

No, the reason I can't understand what they say more than a certain point is that I am not a "scientist". I am not an "engineer". Just because I can't figure out what he's saying doesn't mean it's not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the reason I can't understand what they say more than a certain point is that I am not a "scientist". I am not an "engineer". Just because I can't figure out what he's saying doesn't mean it's not true.

But you are the one on here telling us that our current models are wrong. The scientists and engineers who use these things every day haven't noticed that they are wrong.

 

If you can't present evidence why they are wrong, and present something that does work better, what good reason would anyone have for abandoning the idea that is working pretty darn well?

 

I'm sorry, but your word alone is not enough to convince anyone that something is wrong. Evidence needs to be presented why you think your idea is better. This is how science is actually done. This is how rational beings act.

 

It is wholly irrational to abandon something that is working very well in favor of something that can't even demonstrate if it even works or not.

Edited by Bignose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the cathode ray tube (and other thermionic devices) particles with a negative charge travel through a vacuum towards a positive potential. I wonder what you might call these negatively charged particles? Electrons perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Battery electricity 2.4 V goes right through a new capacitor to power an LED.

And this falls outside the current knowledge how? Is this is the best you can do, again, I am not surprised that it was ignored if submitted to journals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Battery electricity 2.4 V goes right through a new capacitor to power an LED.

I got somebody telling me the device was actually a 1k ohm thermistor. Thing is, the resistance doesn't seem to affect volts and amps. Even for the normal resistor. Maybe the multimeter is messing up. No, I think it's still working right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone told you a capacitor was a resistor? Well, what is it? Those are two pretty different things. I'm sorry, but I don't have a lot of confidence in any of your supposed reported results if you couldn't tell the difference between a resistor and a capacitor. Unless it was just completely stripped of color and markings, the markings between the two are pretty darn different. Even then, you should have been able to tell what is was pretty quickly with a really simple test circuit.

 

I think you probably ought to back up, and tell us exactly what the circuit is (a drawing would be just super), and then tell us exactly what you were using the multimeter to measure, and what points you put the leads to.

 

Before you go thinking you can rewrite the last 100 years of physics, let's make sure these basics are right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it so strange that a voltage will pass through a capacitor to power an LED? The current doesn't have to, as the voltage will force charge carriers ( electrons or holes ) on the opposing side of the cap to become mobile. Ther would be little difference between a capacitor and a resistor, one would introduce a time delay while the other would require a minimum voltage.

 

You display very little understanding of how electrical systems work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it so strange that a voltage will pass through a capacitor to power an LED? The current doesn't have to, as the voltage will force charge carriers ( electrons or holes ) on the opposing side of the cap to become mobile. Ther would be little difference between a capacitor and a resistor, one would introduce a time delay while the other would require a minimum voltage.

 

You display very little understanding of how electrical systems work.

I'm no longer sure it was a capacitor. Someone was telling me it was a thermistor, which happens to look just the same as a capacitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone told you a capacitor was a resistor? Well, what is it? Those are two pretty different things. I'm sorry, but I don't have a lot of confidence in any of your supposed reported results if you couldn't tell the difference between a resistor and a capacitor. Unless it was just completely stripped of color and markings, the markings between the two are pretty darn different. Even then, you should have been able to tell what is was pretty quickly with a really simple test circuit.

 

I think you probably ought to back up, and tell us exactly what the circuit is (a drawing would be just super), and then tell us exactly what you were using the multimeter to measure, and what points you put the leads to.

 

Before you go thinking you can rewrite the last 100 years of physics, let's make sure these basics are right.

https://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Electrons-Edited?page=4

 

https://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-Electrons-Edited?page=5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So what's your point, other than that you're copy/pasting things you say here over into another discussion board, and perhaps vice-versa?

The circuit diagram and the details are there.

The question posed in the OP is quite intesting. As are some of the responses.

 

The 'fact' that electricity is the result of electron flow is one of those things that many people 'know' because that is what they've been taught. There are many similar things that many people believe they 'know'.

 

Our understanding that electricity is the flow of electrons is the result of a whole body of theory supported by observation and experiment. There isn't as far as I know a simple 'clincher' of a fact or observation that could prove to the sceptic that that is how it is. But I might be wrong. I hope someone might suggest one.

Nice answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my tests of parallel circuitry just now, with 12 resistors, it seems that each resistor in parallel with each other resistor in the circuit was having the exact same amps as the input amperage, so I suppose it's like 2 amps in with 24 amps useable.

And a resistor LED measured at 150 kohms
lit up, parallel with 11 resistors with resistances between 100 ohms and 8 kohms.

It's as if the very resistance itself was being negated as a concept in this circuit.

Volts seem have the same effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my tests of parallel circuitry just now, with 12 resistors, it seems that each resistor in parallel with each other resistor in the circuit was having the exact same amps as the input amperage

 

Can you explain how you determined the current in each resistor?

 

 

And a resistor LED measured at 150 kohms

 

An LED is not a resistor. It has a non-linear voltage-current curve so the measured "resistance" will depend on the applied voltage.

 

 

lit up, parallel with 11 resistors with resistances between 100 ohms and 8 kohms.

 

The LED will light if there is sufficient voltage across it. You don't give enough information to say whether this is expected or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.