The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1913-01-17
ELECTRICITY.
Why IL Is Difficult Fer the layman -
Understand What IL Ia.

Why II Is Difficult Fer the Layman -
Understand What IL Is.
] "What is electricity :" is favor
fte query with people who desire to
"get rise" ont OF a scientific man.
And when he fails to answer il 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 is'
Now, to 'tell what thing is"-
that is, to define it's TO state its
relations with something more ia
milan 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 a vibration of material par
ticles. Light, he has been told, Is
/, aswave motion IN the ether, and he
. understands the ether to be kind
Of matter or a substance resem-
bling matter in some pal icdlars.
1t 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 what3 3inatter is, and the
ktest plausible theory of it builds
/, It up on an electric basis, so that on
!. this theoy.the idea of electricity is
, more fundamental than that OF
5 matter. Unfortunately our senses
= have been evolved, by contact with
matter and are trained to detect
only matter. Electricity they know
!, only seeosdarily, through its action
: upon matter-the light or heat that
it causes matter to give out, the at
: traction that it causes certain sub
stances to exert, and so on. To the
: man in the street, therefore, matter
is familiar, and he demands state
a meHt of the latter in terms of the
e former, illogical though this may
t be. After the scieatiet has stated
] all this the reply comes back, "Yes,
e I understand all that, and 1t is
t most clear, | am sure, but tel me,
0 then, what is electricity anyway"
Another source of confusion to
= the lay mind is that scientific men
: do not always use the word "elec-
S tricity" to mean the same thing.
The engineer often employs it to
g express the thing that the theoret-
:, ical electrician calls electric ener-
: gy."
To find the energy of electricity
/ that is, it's ability to do work
9 the electrician multiplies 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 he
calls Electricity"
The work that a pound of water
may do by falling foot is ons foot
pound. The water is the same after
falling as before, though its energy
is less. So to the electrician q
quantity of electricity at 100 solt'
is preciselEthe same as at one volt
though former is able TO do q
hundred times as much work.
This difference In meaning causes
thousands of disputes among stu
dents. electricity is form Of
energy" says one, Gust like igh'
!, OF heat" ooh, no." is the reply
'Tt is not energy at all, though i
, may possess or convey energy" On'
disputant is talking about the elec
tricity of the physical and the othel
: about that OF the engineer; henc'
: their dispute j. merely matter o
| definition, though they do not know
| it. What wonder taat some peopl'
! { re f'i'l ..~' ~. TO rera II wh ~
II