The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1917-09-14
ELECTRICITY.



Usdsesss~d What II IL.
~what Il elee*ricity?" is . favor
fss query with people who desire
get q rise" out of scienti6" mar
And when he fails to answer it
tha same simple fashion that h
might treat the question "What
Q biscuit?" the questioner cries out
sAml You profess to know al
about electricity. Why, you cans
sven tell what it isl"
Now, to "tell what thing is"-
that Is, to define its to state it.
relations with something more is
miliar. The particular familie
thing that the questioner is think
ing of in this case Is ordinary maj
ter. Heat has been explained t
him az q vibration of material par
ticles Light, he has been told. i'
Q ws, motion in the ether, and y
understands the ether to be kin.
Of matter or . substance resem
bling matter in some particulars.
It Il not to be denied that NJ
such simple general RELATIONSHIP.
can b stated between electricit'
and matter. But, this being so, j.
would be just as correct to sey thai
Vs do not know what matter is q,
that We do not know what electrici
q n. AS a matter of fact, we dt
not know what matter is, and the
latest plausible theory of it build:
II up on an electric basis, 30 that on
this theory the idea of electricity ID
more fundamental than that oi
matter. Unfortunately our senses
have been evolved by contact with
matter and are trained to detec'
only matter. Electricity they know
only secondarily, through its actor
upon matter-the light OF heat tha
It causes matter to give out, the al
traction that it causes certain sub
stances to exert, and so on. To th.
man in the street, therefore, matte
Il familiar, and he demands stat
mont Of the latter in terms Of IT,
former, illogical though this ma
be. After the scientist has state
all this the reply comes back, "Ye
/ understand all that, and it
most clear, I am sure, but tell N.
then, what Ia electricity anyway"
Another source OF confusion
the lay mind is that scientific me
do not always use the word "ele.
tricity. to mean the same thing
The engineer often employs it t
express tie thing that the theoye:
ical electrician calls electric enc
U."
To find the energy of electricit
that is, it's ability to do work
the electrician multiplies the qual.
tity of electricity by the potentis
or tension under which it exist.
But to the engineer this produc
itself measures the thing that h
calls Electricity
The work that u pound Of wate
may do by falling foot is ons Tor
pound. The water is the same afte
falling as before, though its energ
is less. So to the electrician
quantity of electricity at 100 -oll
IL precisely the same as at one sol
though the former ia able to do
hundred times a much work.
This difference in meaning cause
thousands Of disputes among st,
dents. Electricity is form c
energy" says one. Gust like hgt
or heat" "Oh, no" is the repl.
"It is not energy at all, though
may possess or convey energy" On
disputant is talking about the elet
tricity of the physical and the otht
about that of the engineer; henc
their dispute is merely matter {
definition, though they do not kno
1t. What wonder that some peopl
ire s-ill .etna' 10 raga ! the who
s1bj t i Z; \ ,;uba JF q
lo2 81 ar hi.