Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Lorentz perpendicular action experiment
35 views
Skip to first unread message
PengKuan Em
Dec 4, 2012, 3:55:22 PM12/4/12
to
I have proposed an experiment design Lorentz torque to get precise data of magnetic force to compare with predictions by the two laws. Now, I propose a simpler but more impressive experiment which is a visual demonstration of the inconsistency of the Lorentz force law and whose result can be shown by video. Figure 1 shows the setup. A small rectangular coil abcd, called the test coil, is placed at the center of a long rectangular coil ABCD, called the inducing coil. The test coil is free to turn about its long axle. The current I in ABCD induces a magnetic field B which exerts a Lorentz force on the current i of the test coil and makes it tilt.
Please read the article at
Lorentz perpendicular action experiment
http://pengkuanem.blogspot.com/2012/12/lorentz-perpendicular-action-experiment.html
or http://www.academia.edu/2237784/Lorentz_perpendicular_action_experiment
Benj
Dec 4, 2012, 6:14:21 PM12/4/12
to
thinking.
First off your "force formula" is for the force between two loops in
total. You can loops rotating on pivots so that restricts the forces that
act. Also that formula actually USES the Lorentz law which you are trying
to prove is wrong with it! Duh. And furthermore, even if you used the
current in the large loop to calculate the magnetic field at every point
in the small loop and then integrated that total force resolved in the
direction tangent to loop rotation, (And they are OBVIOUSLY not the same
in both cases) you then allow the loop to rotate out of the plane
creating a nice 3 dimensional vector problem out of the former 2D one.
Nice.
In short, you are not even close to doing what you say you are doing. And
while you are at it why not use 60hz AC for the coils rather than DC so
the magnetic field calculation will be wrong as well?
PengKuan Em
Dec 4, 2012, 6:56:07 PM12/4/12
to
Le mercredi 5 décembre 2012 00:14:21 UTC+1, Benj a écrit :
>
> Sorry PenKuan, but your "paradox" is a masterpiece of confusion and fuzz
>
> thinking.
>
>
>
> First off your "force formula" is for the force between two loops in
>
> total. You can loops rotating on pivots so that restricts the forces that
>
> act. Also that formula actually USES the Lorentz law which you are trying
>
> to prove is wrong with it! Duh. And furthermore, even if you used the
>
> current in the large loop to calculate the magnetic field at every point
>
> in the small loop and then integrated that total force resolved in the
>
> direction tangent to loop rotation, (And they are OBVIOUSLY not the same
>
> in both cases) you then allow the loop to rotate out of the plane
>
> creating a nice 3 dimensional vector problem out of the former 2D one.
>
> Nice.
>
>
>
> In short, you are not even close to doing what you say you are doing. And
>
> while you are at it why not use 60hz AC for the coils rather than DC so
>
> the magnetic field calculation will be wrong as well?
Thank you for your comment. Actually, I did not put the correct law for computation by thinking that one would read my explanation in another article. I have corrected this error and added the correct law in my post.
>
> Sorry PenKuan, but your "paradox" is a masterpiece of confusion and fuzz
>
> thinking.
>
>
>
> First off your "force formula" is for the force between two loops in
>
> total. You can loops rotating on pivots so that restricts the forces that
>
> act. Also that formula actually USES the Lorentz law which you are trying
>
> to prove is wrong with it! Duh. And furthermore, even if you used the
>
> current in the large loop to calculate the magnetic field at every point
>
> in the small loop and then integrated that total force resolved in the
>
> direction tangent to loop rotation, (And they are OBVIOUSLY not the same
>
> in both cases) you then allow the loop to rotate out of the plane
>
> creating a nice 3 dimensional vector problem out of the former 2D one.
>
> Nice.
>
>
>
> In short, you are not even close to doing what you say you are doing. And
>
> while you are at it why not use 60hz AC for the coils rather than DC so
>
> the magnetic field calculation will be wrong as well?
I compute the torque by integrating the OM*dF (torque on the segment) for every numerical segment. The tangential force is computed with the torque, not reverse. As the 2 laws are different, the torque are different too.
pk
Szczepan Bialek
Dec 5, 2012, 3:39:37 AM12/5/12
to
"PengKuan Em" <tita...@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci
news:ff4b73f7-97cf-4870...@googlegroups.com...
prove that the
Lorentz force law is wrong in certain circumstance. This experiment will be
so fantastic that
the winner's name will surely be known all over the world."
The winner name is Ampere. He experimentally had found the correct force
law.
Lorentz force law is wrote by Heaviside. It is the math only without the
physical sense.
Ampere was the first who made the solenoid. But in the experiments he was
using "yours" rectangular test coils.
Ampere is the only creator of the Electrodynamics or "Electromagnetism
without magnetism".
In his theory the "magnetic field" is the electric field of moving charges.
Do you know the Ampere works?
S*
Jos Bergervoet
Dec 5, 2012, 3:47:47 AM12/5/12
to
On 12/5/2012 12:14 AM, Benj wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:55:22 -0800, PengKuan Em wrote:
>
>> I have proposed an experiment design Lorentz torque to get precise data
...
> On Tue, 04 Dec 2012 12:55:22 -0800, PengKuan Em wrote:
>
>> I have proposed an experiment design Lorentz torque to get precise data
..
> In short, you are not even close to doing what you say you are doing. And
> while you are at it why not use 60hz AC for the coils rather than DC so
> the magnetic field calculation will be wrong as well?
Then I would suggest using *60GHz* AC for the coils (while we're
> while you are at it why not use 60hz AC for the coils rather than DC so
> the magnetic field calculation will be wrong as well?
at it, that is!) Please measure the Lorentz force for that case.
--
Jos
PengKuan Em
Dec 5, 2012, 1:48:00 PM12/5/12
to
Le mercredi 5 décembre 2012 09:39:37 UTC+1, Szczepan Bialek a écrit :
>
>
> The winner name is Ampere. He experimentally had found the correct force
>
> law.
>
> Lorentz force law is wrote by Heaviside. It is the math only without the
>
> physical sense.
>
>
>
> Ampere was the first who made the solenoid. But in the experiments he was
>
> using "yours" rectangular test coils.
>
> Ampere is the only creator of the Electrodynamics or "Electromagnetism
>
> without magnetism".
>
> In his theory the "magnetic field" is the electric field of moving charges.
>
>
>
> Do you know the Ampere works?
>
> S*
Ampere did right. Heaviside did wrong, but he was the strongest. The physical world is his now. The search of the right natural law follows always this way. The ancient Greeks knew that the sun is the center of our system. But Ptolemy was the strongest and imposed his theory as the official. Then, it was the struggle of Copernicus and Kepler and Galileo etc for the world to return to the right way.
>
>
> The winner name is Ampere. He experimentally had found the correct force
>
> law.
>
> Lorentz force law is wrote by Heaviside. It is the math only without the
>
> physical sense.
>
>
>
> Ampere was the first who made the solenoid. But in the experiments he was
>
> using "yours" rectangular test coils.
>
> Ampere is the only creator of the Electrodynamics or "Electromagnetism
>
> without magnetism".
>
> In his theory the "magnetic field" is the electric field of moving charges.
>
>
>
> Do you know the Ampere works?
>
> S*
pk
PengKuan Em
Dec 5, 2012, 1:49:59 PM12/5/12
to
pk
Szczepan Bialek
Dec 5, 2012, 2:19:03 PM12/5/12
to
news:f020cae5-18ae-45e3...@googlegroups.com...
<The search of the right natural law follows always this way. The ancient
Greeks knew that the sun is the center of our system. But Ptolemy was the
strongest and imposed his theory as the official
Ptolemy was also the ancient Greeks and he also knew what is in the center.
But the all measurements were made from the Earth. Todays astronomers use
the Ptolemy method.
<Then, it was the struggle of Copernicus and Kepler and Galileo etc for the
world to return to the right way.
Science and teaching are the different things. All scientists know that
"Ampere did right. Heaviside did wrong".
But it seems to me that in the teaching program must be the gravity,
electricity and magnetism as a seperate chapters.
No place for the "Electromagnetism without magnetism".
But after school everybody can stady the more sophisticated Electrodynamics.
But do you know that the light is the "lateral waves". Not transversal, not
longitudinal but lateral. It is Faraday discovery.
The greatest his discovery.
S*
Le mercredi 5 décembre 2012 09:39:37 UTC+1, Szczepan Bialek a écrit :
>
>
> The winner name is Ampere. He experimentally had found the correct force
>
> law.
>
> Lorentz force law is wrote by Heaviside. It is the math only without the
>
> physical sense.
>
>
>
> Ampere was the first who made the solenoid. But in the experiments he was
>
> using "yours" rectangular test coils.
>
> Ampere is the only creator of the Electrodynamics or "Electromagnetism
>
> without magnetism".
>
> In his theory the "magnetic field" is the electric field of moving
> charges.
>
>
>
> Do you know the Ampere works?
>
> S*
<Ampere did right. Heaviside did wrong, but he was the strongest. The
physical world is his now.
Not the physical world but the textbooks only.
>
>
> The winner name is Ampere. He experimentally had found the correct force
>
> law.
>
> Lorentz force law is wrote by Heaviside. It is the math only without the
>
> physical sense.
>
>
>
> Ampere was the first who made the solenoid. But in the experiments he was
>
> using "yours" rectangular test coils.
>
> Ampere is the only creator of the Electrodynamics or "Electromagnetism
>
> without magnetism".
>
> In his theory the "magnetic field" is the electric field of moving
> charges.
>
>
>
> Do you know the Ampere works?
>
> S*
<Ampere did right. Heaviside did wrong, but he was the strongest. The
physical world is his now.
<The search of the right natural law follows always this way. The ancient
Greeks knew that the sun is the center of our system. But Ptolemy was the
strongest and imposed his theory as the official
But the all measurements were made from the Earth. Todays astronomers use
the Ptolemy method.
<Then, it was the struggle of Copernicus and Kepler and Galileo etc for the
world to return to the right way.
"Ampere did right. Heaviside did wrong".
But it seems to me that in the teaching program must be the gravity,
electricity and magnetism as a seperate chapters.
No place for the "Electromagnetism without magnetism".
But after school everybody can stady the more sophisticated Electrodynamics.
But do you know that the light is the "lateral waves". Not transversal, not
longitudinal but lateral. It is Faraday discovery.
The greatest his discovery.
S*
Radi Khrapko
Dec 7, 2012, 5:12:05 AM12/7/12
to
Peng Kuan 彭宽 tita...@gmail.com 4 December 2012 wrote
> I have shown an inconsistency of the Lorentz force law (see Lorentz force on open circuit, Links blogspot academia)
It is not true. Peng Kuan has shown nothing. See R. Khrapko, “Lorentz force on open circuit. Solving of the paradox” http://khrapkori.wmsite.ru/ftpgetfile.php?id=102&module=files
> I have shown an inconsistency of the Lorentz force law (see Lorentz force on open circuit, Links blogspot academia)
It is not true. Peng Kuan has shown nothing. See R. Khrapko, “Lorentz force on open circuit. Solving of the paradox” http://khrapkori.wmsite.ru/ftpgetfile.php?id=102&module=files
PengKuan Em
Dec 7, 2012, 7:04:33 PM12/7/12
to
Let us say that the force on the corner is Fr, which increases when the spheres go farther. But the force on the spheres decrease in the same process. When they are very far, their forces are negligible. So, the force on the corner, Fr stays and the whole system is under a force that breaks the third Newton's law or can do work without source of energy.
Thank you for the comment.
PK
Szczepan Bialek
Dec 8, 2012, 4:22:52 AM12/8/12
to
"PengKuan Em" <tita...@gmail.com> napisa� w wiadomo�ci
news:99c29a48-1c9a-4635...@googlegroups.com...
Le vendredi 7 d�cembre 2012 11:12:05 UTC+1, Radi Khrapko a �crit :
> Peng Kuan ?? tita...@gmail.com 4 December 2012 wrote
>
> > I have shown an inconsistency of the Lorentz force law (see Lorentz
> > force on open circuit, Links blogspot academia)
>
>
>
> It is not true. Peng Kuan has shown nothing. See R. Khrapko, "Lorentz
> force on open circuit. Solving of the paradox"
> http://khrapkori.wmsite.ru/ftpgetfile.php?id=102&module=files
<In your paper, you do not actually compute the force on the spheres. They
are in fact negligible before the resultant force on the corner.
<Let us say that the force on the corner is Fr, which increases when the
spheres go farther. But the force on the spheres decrease in the same
process. When they are very far, their forces are negligible. So, the force
on the corner, Fr stays and the whole system is under a force that breaks
the third Newton's law or can do work without source of energy.
Heaviside's force law is for the school's children. It apply to the parallel
> > I have shown an inconsistency of the Lorentz force law (see Lorentz
> > force on open circuit, Links blogspot academia)
>
>
>
> It is not true. Peng Kuan has shown nothing. See R. Khrapko, "Lorentz
> force on open circuit. Solving of the paradox"
> http://khrapkori.wmsite.ru/ftpgetfile.php?id=102&module=files
<In your paper, you do not actually compute the force on the spheres. They
are in fact negligible before the resultant force on the corner.
<Let us say that the force on the corner is Fr, which increases when the
spheres go farther. But the force on the spheres decrease in the same
process. When they are very far, their forces are negligible. So, the force
on the corner, Fr stays and the whole system is under a force that breaks
the third Newton's law or can do work without source of energy.
wires only.
For the wires at angle you must use the Ampere force law:
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V15NO3PDF/V15N3VAL..pdf
See the page 317, Fig 2.
Do you want to teach the small children the such sophisticated equation?
For what?
S*
PengKuan Em
Dec 10, 2012, 9:49:31 PM12/10/12
to
Le samedi 8 décembre 2012 10:22:52 UTC+1, Szczepan Bialek a écrit :
> <In your paper, you do not actually compute the force on the spheres. They
>
> are in fact negligible before the resultant force on the corner.
>
>
>
> <Let us say that the force on the corner is Fr, which increases when the
>
> spheres go farther. But the force on the spheres decrease in the same
>
> process. When they are very far, their forces are negligible. So, the force
>
> on the corner, Fr stays and the whole system is under a force that breaks
>
> the third Newton's law or can do work without source of energy.
>
>
>
> Heaviside's force law is for the school's children. It apply to the parallel
>
> wires only.
>
>
>
> For the wires at angle you must use the Ampere force law:
>
> http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V15NO3PDF/V15N3VAL..pdf
>
> See the page 317, Fig 2.
>
>
>
> Do you want to teach the small children the such sophisticated equation?
>
> For what?
>
> S*
Thank you Szczepan Bialek, your link is very interesting. It is an existing experimental proof of the inconsistency of the Lorentz force law that I'm claiming.
> <In your paper, you do not actually compute the force on the spheres. They
>
> are in fact negligible before the resultant force on the corner.
>
>
>
> <Let us say that the force on the corner is Fr, which increases when the
>
> spheres go farther. But the force on the spheres decrease in the same
>
> process. When they are very far, their forces are negligible. So, the force
>
> on the corner, Fr stays and the whole system is under a force that breaks
>
> the third Newton's law or can do work without source of energy.
>
>
>
> Heaviside's force law is for the school's children. It apply to the parallel
>
> wires only.
>
>
>
> For the wires at angle you must use the Ampere force law:
>
> http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V15NO3PDF/V15N3VAL..pdf
>
> See the page 317, Fig 2.
>
>
>
> Do you want to teach the small children the such sophisticated equation?
>
> For what?
>
> S*
PK
Szczepan Bialek
Dec 11, 2012, 4:07:02 AM12/11/12
to
news:e2a228be-f00a-4289...@googlegroups.com...
Le samedi 8 d�cembre 2012 10:22:52 UTC+1, Szczepan Bialek a �crit>
>
> Heaviside's force law is for the school's children. It apply to the
> parallel
>
> wires only.
>
> For the wires at angle you must use the Ampere force law:
>
> http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V15NO3PDF/V15N3VAL..pdf
>
> See the page 317, Fig 2.
>
>
>
> Do you want to teach the small children the such sophisticated equation?
>
> For what?
>
> S*
<Thank you Szczepan Bialek, your link is very interesting. It is an existing
experimental proof of the inconsistency of the Lorentz force law that I'm
claiming.
The Author wrote" In the twenty-first century, students of electromagnetism
may have no choice but become familiar with Newtonian
electrodynamics as well as field theory. "
Now in the schools are the two fluids from XVIII century.
The electrons were discovered by Ampere and Faraday about 1825.
The Copernicus theory was introduced to the schools after 250 years.
The simple calculations: 1825 + 250 = 2075.
So the field theory will disapear from schools after 2075.
But in science no such from Ampere.
S*
PK
Le samedi 8 d�cembre 2012 10:22:52 UTC+1, Szczepan Bialek a �crit>
>
> Heaviside's force law is for the school's children. It apply to the
> parallel
>
> wires only.
>
> For the wires at angle you must use the Ampere force law:
>
> http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V15NO3PDF/V15N3VAL..pdf
>
> See the page 317, Fig 2.
>
>
>
> Do you want to teach the small children the such sophisticated equation?
>
> For what?
>
> S*
<Thank you Szczepan Bialek, your link is very interesting. It is an existing
experimental proof of the inconsistency of the Lorentz force law that I'm
claiming.
may have no choice but become familiar with Newtonian
electrodynamics as well as field theory. "
Now in the schools are the two fluids from XVIII century.
The electrons were discovered by Ampere and Faraday about 1825.
The Copernicus theory was introduced to the schools after 250 years.
The simple calculations: 1825 + 250 = 2075.
So the field theory will disapear from schools after 2075.
But in science no such from Ampere.
S*
PK
0 new messages