[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: TC Secondary Currents - was ( Experimental Help - Terry?)



Original poster: "Wall Richard Wayne by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com>

 
Paul N. wrote:
 
 
There's nothing mythical about displacement current, and it's
trivially easy to prove that it has its own magnetic field.
Simply turn on a radio.  If it receives a distant signal, then you
have proved the case: radio waves require Maxwell's displacement
current [*].
 
Your radio example proves nothing in regard to displacement current.  The
same case can also be stated for longitudinal wave radio reception.  BTW,
did Maxwell proclaim radio waves to be displacement current?  Actually,
what you just described is nothing more than the flat plate experiment
already proposed, ie., two parallel capacitor plates with an air dielectric
between driven by AC current.  There is an electric wave in the dielectric
(air) between the two plates.  Think about it.  
 
There is always confusion between conduction of current in a conductor
(wire) versus an electrical wave in a dielectric.  I think you'll agree
that air or even the vacuum of space functions as a dielectric.  In a
conductor current magnetic field circles around the wire conductor.  A
simple compass can detect the circular magnetic field around a wire in DC
or slowly varying AC.  Now I'm sure you're rather fond of Maxwell's nice
orthogonal E and B fields moving along in a sinus transverse rhythm in a
wave in space.  It takes little imagination to see the magnetic fields have
completely different orientations in conductor currents vs electric waves
in space.  B field orientation is completely different in each.  So, to be
precise always make the distinction between the two as it make a huge
difference.  No one has ever captured or detected those pretty orthogonal E
and B fields in a wave in free space or dielectric.  T! he have never been
proven to exist as Maxwell proposed.   They're just his diagrams to try and
explain his theory and have no physical basis in reality.   So, the real
question in this debate involves conduction of electricity in a conductor
vs a dielectric.
 
BTW, which way does Maxwell indicate "displacement current" moves in
relation to the conduction current in the same circuit?
 
 
[*] My personal hero Maxwell.  A mathematician, he had a hard time
convincing folk that his proposed displacement current was a
feature of reality.  But the math involved was just too simple and
beautiful for nature to have missed the opportunity.  It was with
this discovery that the first cracks began to appear in the naive and
constrictive notion of an absolute space and time. IMO modern physics
began with Maxwell's displacement current - it was the time that
physics first started getting weird, and it's carried on getting a
lot weirder in the intervening 130 years! 
--
Paul Nicholson
--
 
Well, Paul, this was a big mistake on Maxwell's part.  In essence he had a
"simple" and "beautiful" mathematical theory, but it didn't work.  Nature
would not cooperate.  So, he designed the most grand mythical fix ever to
make his equations work - -  "displacement current".  Only one big problem,
Nature still rejected it and it still doesn't work.  Never any undisputable
experimental evidence of this  perpetuated fantasy.  Science doesn't work
this way.  Nature's secrets are discovered by undeniable experimental
results THEN theory and mathematics may be applied to match reality.
Maxwell had it backward.
 
In my opinion "displacement current" is the crack in Maxwell's EM dam.
It's been patched and plastered over for years.  It's taught as gospel to
EE students.  There is no room for independent thought in their heads.
Unfortunately, it does not coincide with Nature and has never been
undeniably found to exist.  As such, it is the weakest part of the dam and
as it crumbles the dam will sooner or later give way taking along with it
all of Maxwell's true believers.
 
RWW
 

 
--- Richard Wayne Wall
--- rwall-at-ix-dot-netcom-dot-com