The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1911-10-06
ELECTRICITY.
Why II 10 Difficult For the Lsyran ts
Understand What u ls.


"What is'electricity z" is a favor
ite query with people who desire TO
"get a rise" out Of scientific man.
And when he fails to answer it in
the same simple fashion that he
might treat the question what Is
a biscuit?' the questioner cries out !:
"Aha! You profess TO know all
about electricity. Why, you can't
even tell what it Isl"
Now, to "tell what thing is"-
that is, to define its to state its
relations with something more IA
miliar. The particular familiar
thing that the questioner is think
ing of in this case is ordinary mat
ter. Heat has been explained TO
him as vibration of material par
ticles. Light, ne has been told, il
aswaye motion in the ether, and he
understands the ether to be a kind
OF matter or a substance resem-
bling matter in some particulars.
It is not to be denied that no
such simple general relationship
can be stated between electricity
and matter. But, this being so, it
would be just as correct to say that
we do not know what matter is as
that we do not know what electrici-
ty is. As a matter Of fact, we do
not know what matter is, and the
latest plausible theory of it builds
it up on an electric basis, so that on
this theory the idea of electricity is
more fundamental than that Of
matter. Unfortunately our senses
have been evolved by contact with
matter and are trained to tetect
only matter. Electricity they know
only secondarily, through its dctien
upon matter-the light or heat that
il causes matter TO give out, the at
traction that il causes certain sub
stances TO exert, and SO on. To the
man in the street, therefore, matter
Is familiar, and be demands state
ment Of the latter IN terms Of the
former, illogical though Mis- may
be. After the scientist has stated
ell this the reply comes back, Yes,
I understand oil that, and It n
most clear, I am sure, but tell me,
then, what Is electricity anyway
Another source of confusion to
the lay mind is that scientific men
do not always use the word "elec-
tricity" to mean the same thing.
The engineer often employs it to
exprrss the thing that the theoret-
ical electrician calls electric ener-
g."
To find the energy of electricity
that is, its ability TO do work
the electrician multiplics the guam;
tity Of electricity by the potential
or tension under which it exists.
But to the engineer this product
itself measures the thing that be
calls electricity"
The work that q pound of water
may do by falling foot ia one foot
pound. The water is the same after
falling as before, though It's energy
is less. So to the electrician a
quantity of electricity at 200 volts
is precisely the same as az one volt,
though the former is able to DO O
hundred times as much work.
This difference in meaning causes
thousands Of disputes among stu
dents. electricity is q form Of
energy" says one, 'sust like light
or heat" ooh, now is the Nply.
at is not energy at all, though II
may possess or convey energy" One
disputant Is talking about the elee-
tricity Of the physical and the other
about that Of the engineer; hence
their dispute is merely matter OF
definition, though they do not know
IL. What wonder that some people
are still content to regard thewhole
subject as a civilized Mumbo Jum-
ho ?-St. Louis Republic.