A new explanation of the electric current

[Mitko Gorgiev]

Electric current is an immaterial swirling wind through the electrical conductor. The immaterial magnetic wind through it is also spiral-shaped (i.e., it is not perpendicular to the conductor as the contemporary physics asserts). During the flow of direct current, both winds blow from the plus- to the minus-pole of the battery, the electric wind in counter-clockwise direction, whereas the magnetic wind in clockwise direction. These two fluxes are at angle of 90 degrees.

I will introduce a new explanation of the electric current which I call “dynamic” because it speaks of forces (δύναμις = force), in contrast to the contemporary explanation which is materialistic, because it speaks of material particles, called electrons, supposedly moving through the metal wires. I call the new explanation “dynamic” because in its basis lies vibration of electromagnetic forces (EM-forces). These forces are not material. What was just said is well documented when we recall that the magnetic and the electric forces cannot be blocked by material bodies that are placed between the source of the force and the bodies they act on. For example, if we put a piece of iron near a magnet, the magnet will attract it even if we place a plastic, wooden or metal board between them. Likewise, radio waves penetrate walls without perforating them. This can be done only by something that is not of material nature. But even though they are immaterial, a material body is needed as their source. And in order to manifest themselves, they also need a suitable object to act upon; otherwise we would not be aware of their existence.

Other terms necessary to understand the new explanation are “order” and “orientation”. We can get a notion of these terms from several things: from magnetism, thread, wood, etc. When a magnet is brought in the vicinity of iron powder, the particles of the powder will adhere to the magnet with strictly oriented order. If we think of such a particle as a very small line segment, then it aligns itself not only in the same direction with the other particles, but also has a strict orientation of its plus and minus poles. We can imagine the particle as the smallest possible line segment and yet its properties will remain as described. In the thread we also have an ordered multiplicity of tiny little plant or animal fibers in the same spiral direction, except that there is no orientation here, that is, the fibers have no poles.

Now I will introduce the electromagnetic force element, which is the basis of the explanation. It has the following form:

The EM-force element has three segments. In the middle is the magnetic segment with its two poles, M(+) and M(–), and at its ends are the electrical plus (E+) and minus (E−) segments, arranged at an angle of 90° to the magnetic segment. We have to imagine this element in a huge multiplicity, evoked by the power source.

[ In relation to this new explanation, we could also visualize a new notion of the matter: if we, so to say, descend ever deeper and deeper in the matter, at the end we come to nothing. But this “nothing” is actually not nothing. It is invisible, intangible, immaterial forces: electromagnetic forces, light forces etc. The matter at the end, so to say, “dissolves” in immaterial forces.
So, we could say that the matter is a kind of condensation of immaterial forces. ]

Let’s say the power source is an electrochemical cell, i.e., a battery. What is a battery? If two plates of two different metals (say copper and zinc) are partly immersed in a dissolved agent (acid, base, salt), then the part of the copper plate outside the liquid is polarized in one sense (plus), the immersed part in the opposite sense (minus). For the zinc plate applies the opposite. Plus means blowing, minus means suctioning. The two metal plates of the battery can be imagined as two fans. The one that blows outside the liquid (positive electrode = copper), that suctions inside the liquid; the one that suctions outside the liquid (negative electrode = zinc), that blows inside it. When the electrodes are connected with a metal wire, a closed flux is created. The plus is the strongest near the positive pole and, as we move away from it through the wire, its strength continuously decreases. The same applies to the minus, but starting from the other pole. Figuratively, we can represent it this way:

So, the current that emanates from the copper plate is a plus current, because we usually speak of the current through the connecting wire. The current from the zinc plate is a minus current.

Just as the air wind from a fan is a swirling motion, so it is the electric wind through the conducting path. And just as the air swirl is more extended when the air current is stronger, so it is the electricity’s swirl when the electric current is stronger.

But as the electricity’s swirl is becoming more extended with increased electric current, so the magnetic swirl, or rather, the magnetic spiral is becoming more compact (i.e. lesser extended). When the current is stronger, then the magnetic spiral is so tight, that it is practically at an angle of 90° with respect to the conductor’s line; but, of course, never ideally. At the same time the electricity’s spiral is practically at an angle of 0° with respect to the conductor’s line.

Here we have something very similar to the water swirl and its cavitation. When a propeller is turning underwater, then the motion of the water is to one direction, while the motion of the cavities is at angle of 90° with respect to that of the water (drawing below). The faster the propeller is turning, the more extended is the water swirl and the more compacted is the cavities’ spiral.

The motion of the water corresponds to the motion of the electric wind; the motion of the cavities corresponds to the magnetic wind.

Please watch these two short YouTube videos (the first from 2:22):

https://youtu.be/DDsPag56GQE?t=144

https://youtu.be/Y7k7p1RirkI

Although the electromagnetic element is represented by straight lines, it is only a symbolic representation. Each line represents a flux, and the many elementary fluxes unify themselves in a single electromagnetic flux (principle of self-similarity).

The E and M-segments could be imagined as helical gears.

Probably it seems inconsistent that we draw the EM-force element so that the arrows of both E-segments point from their sources outwards on the one hand, while on the other hand we say that the one force has a suctioning effect. Hence, its arrow should have been drawn in the opposite direction. However, the direction of the arrows does not refer to whether the force acts from the source outwards or inwards, but rather to the effect of the action of both E-segments on the M-segment, that is, on its righting with respect to the wire line.

Quotation from Hans Christian Oersted (21 July, 1821): “All the effects on the north pole above-mentioned are easily understood by supposing that negative electricity moves in a spiral line bent towards the right, and propels the north pole, but does not act on the south pole. The effects on the south pole are explained in a similar manner, if we ascribe to positive electricity a contrary motion and power of acting on the south pole, but not upon the north. The agreement of this law with nature will be better seen by a repetition of the experiments than by a long explanation. The mode of judging of the experiments will be much facilitated if the course of the electricities in the uniting wire be pointed out by marks or figures.”

Quotation from Michael Faraday (1822): “The theory of M.Oersted, therefore, seems to require that there be two electric fluids; that they be not either combined or separate, but in the act of combining so as to produce an electric conflict; that they move nevertheless separate from each other, and in opposite spiral directions, through and round the wire; and that they have entirely distinct and different magnetical powers; the one electricity (negative) propelling the north pole of a magnet, but having no action at all on the south pole; the other electricity (positive) propelling the south pole, but having no power over the north pole.
I have before said, that I am not able to comprehend the whole of the Professor's statement, and, perhaps, therefore, ought not to send you any account of it. It is to be hoped, however, that this celebrated philosopher will shortly develope the principles more at large, which have already led him to the results he has published; and there can be no doubt that in pursuing them he will arrive at other results as new to the world, as important to science, and as honourable to himself, as those he has already made known.”

[swansont]

Quote

Electric current is an immaterial swirling wind through the electrical conductor. The immaterial magnetic wind through it is also spiral-shaped (i.e., it is not perpendicular to the conductor as the contemporary physics asserts).

Contemporary physics doesn’t assert this, so that’s a bad start.

Can you make any quantitative predictions with your conjecture? You have zero math in your post.

What experiment would falsify your idea?

Quote

What was just said is well documented when we recall that the magnetic and the electric forces cannot be blocked by material bodies that are placed between the source of the force and the bodies they act on. For example, if we put a piece of iron near a magnet, the magnet will attract it even if we place a plastic, wooden or metal board between them.

What if we put a large chunk of soft iron between them? Magnetic fields can indeed be shielded. (this would be an example of an experiment that falsifies your conjecture)

[Ghideon]

Hello.

Some notes from a rather basic electricity perspective:

27 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

The plus is the strongest near the positive pole and, as we move away from it through the wire, its strength continuously decreases. The same applies to the minus, but starting from the other pole.

Have you ever used a volt-meter? I can measure* the near identical voltage at the power source as when connecting cables of various lengths. That seems to contradict your statement. Can you explain?

37 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

The immaterial magnetic wind through it is also spiral-shaped

Can you explain how multi-strand and single strand cables can have similar performance if the "wind is spiral-shaped". 

 

 

* Unless voltmeter operates outside spec.  

 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Electric current is an immaterial swirling wind through the electrical conductor.

......

...........................

Quotation from Hans Christian Oersted (21 July, 1821): “All the effects on the north pole above-mentioned are easily understood by supposing that negative electricity moves in a spiral line bent towards the right, and propels the north pole, but does not act on the south pole. The effects on the south pole are explained in a similar manner, if we ascribe to positive electricity a contrary motion and power of acting on the south pole, but not upon the north. The agreement of this law with nature will be better seen by a repetition of the experiments than by a long explanation. The mode of judging of the experiments will be much facilitated if the course of the electricities in the uniting wire be pointed out by marks or figures.”

Quotation from Michael Faraday (1822): “The theory of M.Oersted, therefore, seems to require that there be two electric fluids; that they be not either combined or separate, but in the act of combining so as to produce an electric conflict; that they move nevertheless separate from each other, and in opposite spiral directions, through and round the wire; and that they have entirely distinct and different magnetical powers; the one electricity (negative) propelling the north pole of a magnet, but having no action at all on the south pole; the other electricity (positive) propelling the south pole, but having no power over the north pole.
I have before said, that I am not able to comprehend the whole of the Professor's statement, and, perhaps, therefore, ought not to send you any account of it. It is to be hoped, however, that this celebrated philosopher will shortly develope the principles more at large, which have already led him to the results he has published; and there can be no doubt that in pursuing them he will arrive at other results as new to the world, as important to science, and as honourable to himself, as those he has already made known.”

 

I don't see the point of any of this.

I it runs counter to experimental observation.

For instance you do not need a conductor to have an electric current.

The quotations from the early days of electromagnetism seem to bear no relation to the rest of your post and are historically inaccurate.

Oersted made important experimental discoveries about magnetism and some contribution to the connection between magnetism and electricity.

Faraday repeated and refined these experiments, correcting some errors made by Oersted and made further important discoveries in both electricity and magnetism and their interrelationship.

 

What is the purpose in posting this?

[Mitko Gorgiev]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Contemporary physics doesn’t assert this, so that’s a bad start.

Contemporary physics doesn't assert that the magnetic field is perpendicular to the current carrying wire???
I have seen many, many textbooks on physics where this is said.

Quote

Can you make any quantitative predictions with your conjecture? You have zero math in your post.

Yes, I can make quantitative predictions, but the post would have been much longer.

Quote

What experiment would falsify your idea?

I don't understand this question.

I have many experiments which support my theory. They are presented in my paper which is downloadable free of charge.

3 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Have you ever used a volt-meter? I can measure* the near identical voltage at the power source as when connecting cables of various lengths. That seems to contradict your statement. Can you explain?

I don't understand how it contradicts my assertion. Can you elaborate?

Quote

Can you explain how multi-strand and single strand cables can have similar performance if the "wind is spiral-shaped". 

Why is a stranded wire so different from a solid wire? The electric current is immaterial and the type of wire (whether it is stranded or solid) doesn't play a role.

[MigL]

4 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Electric current is an immaterial swirling wind through the electrical conductor.

Immaterial ???

4 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

I will introduce a new explanation of the electric current which I call “dynamic” because it speaks of forces (δύναμις = force), in contrast to the contemporary explanation which is materialistic, because it speaks of material particles, called electrons, supposedly moving through the metal wires. I call the new explanation “dynamic” because in its basis lies vibration of electromagnetic forces (EM-forces). These forces are not material. What was just said is well documented when we recall that the magnetic and the electric forces cannot be blocked by material bodies that are placed between the source of the force and the bodies they act on.

A simple air gap will stop current flow.
Easily seen by disconnecting one terminal of your car battery.

When your first line is TOTALLY wrong, I think you'd better reconsider your whole premise.

[swansont]

29 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Contemporary physics doesn't assert that the magnetic field is perpendicular to the current carrying wire???
I have seen many, many textbooks on physics where this is said.

I doubt that you have.

The field from a current-carrying wire would be circular, as given by the right-hand rule.

 

Quote

Yes, I can make quantitative predictions, but the post would have been much longer.

I don't understand this question.

You need to present ideas for experiments that will work if you are wrong but accepted physics is right. 

Being accidentally right isn’t a valid test.

Quote

I have many experiments which support my theory. They are presented in my paper which is downloadable free of charge.

You have to present your discussion here. Given that you’ve already gotten things wrong, it’s improper to ask that others put forth such effort to debunk you. It’s also what the forum rules prescribe.

 

[Ghideon]

 

39 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

I don't understand how it contradicts my assertion. Can you elaborate?

A: Connect a volt meter to a battery, take the reading.

B: Connect long wires to the battery poles and measure at the end of the wires, read the value of the voltmeter again.

Explain why I get near identical readings while you state that there should be a drop:

5 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

When the electrodes are connected with a metal wire, a closed flux is created. The plus is the strongest near the positive pole and, as we move away from it through the wire, its strength continuously decreases.

Or are you referring to the resistance of the wire? So that your example only applies when short circuiting a battery with a wire with a certain resistance (ohm) per unit length?

 

5 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Plus means blowing, minus means suctioning.

What is the unit in which you measure this minus, suction and plus, blowing and how is the unit defined? 

Edited April 17, 2020 by Ghideon
clarified

[studiot]

 

I would appreciate a response to my post before the moderators close this thread.

 

1 hour ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Why is a stranded wire so different from a solid wire?

 

If you do not know then you have done the right thing by asking.

Apart from the greater flexibility of stranded wire which affects the manual handling, stranded wire has a substantially larger surface area to volume ratio.
And surface area is known to be important transmission of electric current. This is as predicted by conventional theory and borne out by experimental observation.

Edited April 17, 2020 by studiot

[Mitko Gorgiev]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

I would appreciate a response to my post before the moderators close this thread.

Is this a threat?
I have also other things to do than answering questions.
My post is not even half a day on this forum and I have already got threats. 
In the time of Giordano Bruno you would have probably burned me.
I will answer all the questions one by one.

[Strange]

Just now, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Is this a threat?
I have also other things to do than answering questions.
My post is not even half a day on this forum and I have already got threats. 
In the time of Giordano Bruno you would have probably burned me.
I will answer all the questions one by one.

!

Moderator Note

That was not a threat.

But if you think other people's posts are inappropriate then use the report function. Do not comment on it in the thread.

And please don't play the martyr. You are not Bruno or Galileo.

 

2 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

I don't understand this question.

!

Moderator Note

If you don't understand the concept of falsification then you probably do not have a scientific hypothesis.

 

[studiot]

Just now, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Is this a threat?
I have also other things to do than answering questions.
My post is not even half a day on this forum and I have already got threats. 
In the time of Giordano Bruno you would have probably burned me.
I will answer all the questions one by one.

 

I actually answered one of your questions with some factual information to which you could have responded but chose not to.

How can this be a threat?

 

[thomasparker]

mind blowing conversation

Edited April 17, 2020 by thomasparker

[taeto]

Being called "not Bruno or Galileo" might having been too harsh. 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, taeto said:

Being called "not Bruno or Galileo" might having been too harsh. 

It is both literally and figuratively true, and a proportional response to the imagery that we are the Roman inqusition.

[taeto]

Who expects the Roman inquisition, indeed.

[John Cuthber]

On 4/17/2020 at 5:41 PM, Mitko Gorgiev said:

I have also other things to do than answering questions.

Come back when you are less busy.

[Sensei]

On 4/17/2020 at 12:12 PM, Mitko Gorgiev said:

What was just said is well documented when we recall that the magnetic and the electric forces cannot be blocked by material bodies that are placed between the source of the force and the bodies they act on. For example, if we put a piece of iron near a magnet, the magnet will attract it even if we place a plastic, wooden or metal board between them.

Are you familiar with permeability and permittivity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permittivity

 

On 4/17/2020 at 12:12 PM, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Likewise, radio waves penetrate walls without perforating them.

You can reflect, refract, or absorb, or emit photons in radio wave spectrum..

Did you hear about Faraday cage?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage

"A Faraday cage or Faraday shield is an enclosure used to block electromagnetic fields."

 

On 4/17/2020 at 12:12 PM, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Other terms necessary to understand the new explanation are “order” and “orientation”. We can get a notion of these terms from several things: from magnetism, thread, wood, etc. When a magnet is brought in the vicinity of iron powder, the particles of the powder will adhere to the magnet with strictly oriented order. If we think of such a particle as a very small line segment, then it aligns itself not only in the same direction with the other particles, but also has a strict orientation of its plus and minus poles. We can imagine the particle as the smallest possible line segment and yet its properties will remain as described.

..and yet another gap in your electromagnetism's knowledge is magnetic domains.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_domain

"A magnetic domain is a region within a magnetic material in which the magnetization is in a uniform direction. This means that the individual magnetic moments of the atoms are aligned with one another and they point in the same direction. When cooled below a temperature called the Curie temperature, the magnetization of a piece of ferromagnetic material spontaneously divides into many small regions called magnetic domains. The magnetization within each domain points in a uniform direction, but the magnetization of different domains may point in different directions. Magnetic domain structure is responsible for the magnetic behavior of ferromagnetic materials like iron, nickel, cobalt and their alloys, and ferrimagnetic materials like ferrite. This includes the formation of permanent magnets and the attraction of ferromagnetic materials to a magnetic field. The regions separating magnetic domains are called domain walls, where the magnetization rotates coherently from the direction in one domain to that in the next domain. The study of magnetic domains is called micromagnetics."

 

Edited April 18, 2020 by Sensei

[Ghideon]

I'll try to adress this from another angle; looking at the big picture first. In order to discuss your alternative explanations, can you start by telling which mainstream concepts and laws you reject and if there are any concepts and laws you accept? 

(Emphasis mine)

On 4/17/2020 at 12:12 PM, Mitko Gorgiev said:

I will introduce a new explanation of the electric current which I call “dynamic” because it speaks of forces (δύναμις = force), in contrast to the contemporary explanation which is materialistic, because it speaks of material particles, called electrons, supposedly moving through the metal wires.

There needs to be some common ground, otherwise a discussion is not very fruitful. Your version of "electricity", "magnetsim", "current" etc is not compatible with the mainstream and is so far off from observations and accepted theories so "your are wrong" is probably the only thing to say. Trying to explain how each part is incorrect is pointless if you have an alternative take on the basic laws of physics. Example: In mainstream physics electrons is accepted, not "supposed". If you reject electrons do you also reject all of the standard model? How about protons and Photons? Without moving charges (electrons) does it even make sense to talk about "current", "conductor" and "metal"? 

According to your new idea, are any of the current physical laws* correct? Are you suggesting some or all of the laws to be broken and in need of replacements? If a member show you the correct theories and links to papers with supporting experiments would you accept that explanation? I guess not. If you had accepted the mainstream you would not have bothered creating and posting an alternative idea regarding electric current. 

So, what is the very basics of your new idea is based upon, what common ground (definitions, laws etc) do we need to agree upon to be able to understand and review your "new explanation of the electric current"?

 

(Faraday's law, Lorentz force law, Amphere, Lenz, Maxwell ... and other relevant mainstream laws related to electromagnetism supported by observations)

Edited April 18, 2020 by Ghideon
format

[Mitko Gorgiev]

There are already many questions and objections to my OP. English is not my mother language and I cannot express myself very fast. So, be patient, I will try to answer all the questions.

On 4/17/2020 at 5:09 PM, swansont said:

I doubt that you have.

The field from a current-carrying wire would be circular, as given by the right-hand rule.

Yes, it is said that it is circular. But it is also said that those circles are at 90 degrees with respect to the wire line. In another word, perpendicular.

STUDIOT says:

Quote

I don't see the point of any of this.

It runs counter to experimental observation.

For instance you do not need a conductor to have an electric current.

The quotations from the early days of electromagnetism seem to bear no relation to the rest of your post and are historically inaccurate.

If you don't see the point, maybe somebody does.
To what experimental observation does it run counter?
Yes, I need a conductor to have an electric current. If you refer maybe to the vacuum tubes, then they are only a small part of the conducting path. The greater part consists of metal wires.

The quotation from Oersted bears no relation to my post ?!
I think you haven't read my post carefully.

 

Here is my paper for those who want to see the experimental evidence:

LINK DELETED
 

Edited April 19, 2020 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

There are already many questions and objections to my OP.

Because it is wrong in many ways.

 

3 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

To what experimental observation does it run counter?

All the relevant ones.

 

 

3 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Yes, I need a conductor to have an electric current. If you refer maybe to the vacuum tubes, then they are only a small part of the conducting path. The greater part consists of metal wires.

It is entirely possible to build circuits where most of the conductors are not mental.
But that's not the point. You do not NEED a metal.

 

 

3 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

English is not my mother language

This is not a language problem.

3 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Here is my paper for those who want to see the experimental evidence:
 

As far as I could tell by looking through it quickly, there were no experimental data presented in that document.

 

[Strange]

28 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

I think you haven't read my post carefully.

 

Here is my paper for those who want to see the experimental evidence:

!

Moderator Note

If people ask questions or point out errors in your claims, it is not because they haven't read your post carefully.

You need to start providing substantive answers to questions. If you continue to just dismiss questions and the evidence from hundreds of years of physics, this thread will not last long.

Finally, according to the rules you have agreed to, you need to provide answers here on the forum, not just by posting link.

If your next post does not contain some solid evidence for your claims, such as the calculation of measurable results, then this thread will be closed.

 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Yes, it is said that it is circular. But it is also said that those circles are at 90 degrees with respect to the wire line. In another word, perpendicular.

You said the field was perpendicular. It’s not. No amount of tap-dancing changes this.

 

 

[taeto]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

It is entirely possible to build circuits where most of the conductors are not mental.

Funny how Freud sometimes takes control of one's fingertips.

Edited April 19, 2020 by taeto

[studiot]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

2 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Yes, it is said that it is circular. But it is also said that those circles are at 90 degrees with respect to the wire line. In another word, perpendicular.

You said the field was perpendicular. It’s not. No amount of tap-dancing changes this.

I think Mitko has something of a point here, and perhaps there is also a language translation effect.

Mitko, these circles (disks might be a better word) are locally perpendicular to a long straight wire.
I read your words and think you are are referring to a 'long straight wire'
Most wires are not straight (for the most part).

This is why the definition, taught at basic level, refers to a 'long straight wire'.
Teachers are (or should be) careful with the language they use so the students do not take away more than the teacher really meant.

Think about the field inside (and outside) a solenoid.
This is not generally perpendicular to the winding wire of a solenoid.

But this is a detail, we should not get sidetracked by details.

There are fundamental issues with your hypothesis.

I would prefer to concentrate on these.

 

Firstly there are different types of electric current. You have identified only one of them, notably direct current in wires.

Secondly even for the restriction to direct currents, most of these in this world are not carried by electrons.
Most direct currents are the result of chemical action and are carried by ions, either organic or inorganic.
Rusting is a galvanic process as are most of the processes in your own body.
Very few of these currents have an associated magnetic effect.

Thirdly there are several 'models' of electric current in use.
None are perfect; some are downright false or fictitious but still used because they give the right answer to certain questions.
For example the Maxwell mesh currents.
There are also effects to which we still have no satisfactory answer.
Such as the 'anomalous Hall Effect'.

 

To help this thread I suggest the following thought or real experiment as in the diagram.

You have a pair of horizontal large copper plates, separated by a small distance of say 10 - 20 mm.

Connected to each is a wire. I am using wires because it is simpler to say there is an electric current in a wire.
The wires can be wiggly or straight, it doesn't matter to this experiment.

The bottom wire runs to a copper rod buried deeply in moist earth.
The bottom wire is also connected to the second terminal of the battery.
The top wire runs to one terminal of a battery, via an on/off switch.
Both wires include a fast acting current meter (galvanometer) -  the old fashioned centre zero is best as it also indicates current direction.

You have a high speed camera to record and play back on slow the events so you can see what happens when you open or close the switch.

So my question is:

"How does your hypothesis explain what happens

1) Before you lcose the switch - when the switch is open?

2) What happens when you close the switch?

3) What happens when you reverse the battery and repeat the proceedure?"

 

 

Edited April 19, 2020 by studiot