The fluid model of electricity–the notion that electricity was a liquid of some sort contained entirely within a wire–had difficulty explaining the emerging technology of alternating current (or “AC”) electricity, particularly the function of capacitors, inductors, and transformers.
A capacitor is a two-terminal device that stores electric energy. In a simple form, a capacitor comprises two parallel plates separated by a gap. The symbol for a capacitor is a simplified form of this architecture: two parallel lines denoting the plate. AC signals can pass through a capacitor if the frequency of their alternation is high enough. From a field point of view, their function is easy to understand. An applied voltage drives an inflow of charge on one plate and an outflow on the other. The resulting electric field couples across the gap attracting or repelling charge on the opposite plate, inducing an equal and opposite charge. From a fluid perspective, a capacitor might be imagined as a box with an impermeable membrane. No fluid can pass, but pressure can be conveyed across the device if the flow alternates quickly enough Figure 4.27 illustrates a capacitor and the respective models.
An inductor is a two-terminal device that stores magnetic energy. In a simple form, an inductor is merely a wire twisted into a helical coil. The inductor symbol is a series of half loops suggestive of a coil. AC signals pass through an inductor if the frequency of their alternation is low enough. From a field point of view, an inductor’s function makes sense. Applied voltages drive current flow through the coil. The current flow generates magnetic fields through the turns. The changing magnetic field through the loops generates a voltage that opposes the applied voltage. From a fluid perspective, an inductor might be imagined as a turbine with a flywheel. Fluid can pass if the flow changes slowly enough, but it takes time to get the turbine spun up. What is the real-world analog to the supposed turbine blades, let alone the fly wheel? The fluid model has no clear answer. Figure 4.27 also illustrates an inductor and the respective models.
A transformer is a four-terminal device: two helical coils of wire arranged so the magnetic fields of each couple to the coils of the other, preferably through an iron core that helps confine and guide the magnetic fields. An AC input on one side drives a changing magnetic field through the coils on the other side, which generates an AC output on the other side. The ratio of the output voltage to the input voltage depends on the ratio of the number of input turns to the number of output turns (Vout/Vin = Nout/Nin).
In principle, we could imagine that a transformer is like two of the inductor turbines and the iron core that couples the magnetic field between the two coils is somehow like a pulley or a gear train connecting the motion of one inductor turbine to the other. Perhaps that would help some students, unaccustomed to thinking in terms of fields, grasp how a transformer couples AC between an input and an output. Figure 4.27 shows a transformer, its circuit element, and how the core couples the fields. No attempt is made to concoct a reasonable fluid representation of a transformer.
Too many electric effects occur at a distance, through free space, for a fluid model to be appealing. Just as Thompson stumped Sprague by demanding a fluid explanation for inductive coupling, emerging AC discoveries made clear that fields around wires offered a better model. Let’s take a closer look why.
Next time: 4.3.1 Skin Depth and Litz Wire: Evidence Energy Flows Into a Wire From the Surrounding Fields
Follow Online:
You may follow me online in other places as well:
Telegram: 𝔸𝕖𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕔𝕫𝕒𝕣'𝕤 𝔸𝕖𝕥𝕙𝕖𝕣𝕤𝕥𝕣𝕖𝕒𝕞
Gab: @aetherczar
Twitter: @aetherczar
Amazon: Hans G. Schantz
The Poynting vector has a problem in the nearfield of a dipole source. It can be shown that by setting the wave equation equal to a oscillating charge, that the transverse electric field component is generated outside the source at about 1/4 wavelength and launches waves both toward and away from the source, whereas the other components: longitudinal electric field and transverse magnetic field.are created at the source and propagate away from the source. The problem with using the Poynting vector in the nearfield is that it hides the fact that some of the energy is going back into the source and some is propagating away from the source, which cancel, creating no net energy flow in the nearfield, but energy flow in the farfield. Whereas in reality there is energy flow in the nearfield if one isolates each the individual field component terms, which can be done with a suitable dectector. Analyzing the individual field terms shows that the speed of the fields are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduces to about the speed of light in the farfield, at about 1 wavelength from the source. This corresponds to the phase speed, group speed, and information spees. Since the energy is proportional to the square of the field, then the energy is propagating at the group speed, which as I mentioned is instantaneous in the nearfield and reduces to about the speed of light in the farfield, at about 1/4 wavelength from the source. For more information see my paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0603240
The consequences of these results are discussed in my YouTube video presentation, and the paper it is based on:
*YouTube presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sePdJ7vSQvQ&t=0s
*Based on this paper:
http://vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
Here is our most recent paper which experimentally demonstrates an EM pulse propagates instantaneously in the nearfield:
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: https://www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
The speed of light is not a constant as once thought, and this has now been proved by Electrodynamic theory and by Experiments done by many independent researchers. The results clearly show that light propagates instantaneously when it is created by a source, and reduces to approximately the speed of light in the farfield, about one wavelength from the source, and never becomes equal to exactly c. This corresponds the phase speed, group speed, and information speed. Any theory assuming the speed of light is a constant, such as Special Relativity and General Relativity are wrong, and it has implications to Quantum theories as well. So this fact about the speed of light affects all of Modern Physics. Often it is stated that Relativity has been verified by so many experiments, how can it be wrong. Well no experiment can prove a theory, and can only provide evidence that a theory is correct. But one experiment can absolutely disprove a theory, and the new speed of light experiments proving the speed of light is not a constant is such a proof. So what does it mean? Well a derivation of Relativity using instantaneous nearfield light yields Galilean Relativity. This can easily seen by inserting c=infinity into the Lorentz Transform, yielding the GalileanTransform, where time is the same in all inertial frames. So a moving object observed with instantaneous nearfield light will yield no Relativistic effects, whereas by changing the frequency of the light such that farfield light is used will observe Relativistic effects. But since time and space are real and independent of the frequency of light used to measure its effects, then one must conclude the effects of Relativity are just an optical illusion.
Since General Relativity is based on Special Relativity, then it has the same problem. A better theory of Gravity is Gravitoelectromagnetism which assumes gravity can be mathematically described by 4 Maxwell equations, similar to to those of electromagnetic theory. It is well known that General Relativity reduces to Gravitoelectromagnetism for weak fields, which is all that we observe. Using this theory, analysis of an oscillating mass yields a wave equation set equal to a source term. Analysis of this equation shows that the phase speed, group speed, and information speed are instantaneous in the nearfield and reduce to the speed of light in the farfield. This theory then accounts for all the observed gravitational effects including instantaneous nearfield and the speed of light farfield. The main difference is that this theory is a field theory, and not a geometrical theory like General Relativity. Because it is a field theory, Gravity can be then be quantized as the Graviton.
Lastly it should be mentioned that this research shows that the Pilot Wave interpretation of Quantum Mechanics can no longer be criticized for requiring instantaneous interaction of the pilot wave, thereby violating Relativity. It should also be noted that nearfield electromagnetic fields can be explained by quantum mechanics using the Pilot Wave interpretation of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP), where Δx and Δp are interpreted as averages, and not the uncertainty in the values as in other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So in HUP: Δx Δp = h, where Δp=mΔv, and m is an effective mass due to momentum, thus HUP becomes: Δx Δv = h/m. In the nearfield where the field is created, Δx=0, therefore Δv=infinity. In the farfield, HUP: Δx Δp = h, where p = h/λ. HUP then becomes: Δx h/λ = h, or Δx=λ. Also in the farfield HUP becomes: λmΔv=h, thus Δv=h/(mλ). Since p=h/λ, then Δv=p/m. Also since p=mc, then Δv=c. So in summary, in the nearfield Δv=infinity, and in the farfield Δv=c, where Δv is the average velocity of the photon according to Pilot Wave theory. Consequently the Pilot wave interpretation should become the preferred interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. It should also be noted that this argument can be applied to all fields, including the graviton. Hence all fields should exhibit instantaneous nearfield and speed c farfield behavior, and this can explain the non-local effects observed in quantum entangled particles.
*YouTube presentation of above arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sePdJ7vSQvQ&t=0s
*More extensive paper for the above arguments: William D. Walker and Dag Stranneby, A New Interpretation of Relativity, 2023: http://vixra.org/abs/2309.0145
*Electromagnetic pulse experiment paper: https://www.techrxiv.org/doi/full/10.36227/techrxiv.170862178.82175798/v1
Dr. William Walker - PhD in physics from ETH Zurich, 1997