Dynamic magnetic field is open
Sergey Karavashkin
We published a new paper
" Several experiments studying dynamic magnetic field "
in our journal "SELF Transactions", volume 3 (2003), issue 1
*Abstract*
We substantiate three sets of experiments studying EM induction,
describe and present their results. These experiments corroborate that
the lines of force of dynamic magnetic field are open, as well as that
the phenomenology of process of mutual induction is true if based on
the direct interaction of parallel sections of primary and secondary
loops. Additional theoretical calculations on the basis of this
phenomenology well coincide with the experimental results.
Please enjoy reading full text:
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/contents3.html#b
I hope, it will be interesting for many of you, and look forward to
hear your opinion.
Sergey.
John Anderson
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> We published a new paper
>
> " Several experiments studying dynamic magnetic field "
>
> in our journal "SELF Transactions", volume 3 (2003), issue 1
>
Wow. What power! You peer review yourself.
In common terms, you're a mental masturbator.
John Anderson
Sergey Karavashkin
I feel, you are font of this paper. You have no other arguments and
you understood what is your own knowledge of pitecantrop worthy.
Sergey.
John Anderson
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
I realize that English may not be your native language. But I can'trespond to something that is not
only incoherent, but which contains
stuff like "pitecantrop worthy" which seems to be your own
creation.
John Anderson
Leo
Good name for a rock band?
But don't forget that ole Bill Shakespeare is the reigning champ in this
area. I once read that the bard created over 100 words while he penned his
plays, and he never took much heat for it.
Harry
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:a42650fc.03111...@posting.google.com...
Sergey, this looks highly interesting, and I am sorry that I don't find the
time to look at it thoroughly.
One little practical comment: evidently you put a lot of effort into your
papers, so would it be much work to have a downloadable file, "in one go"
instead of having to do it in 10 times? (ideally PDF). It would likely
increase the number of people who -at least- put your articles on their
computer!
Harald
Sergey Karavashkin
I'm so glad to hear from you again. Thank you very much for your
appreciation. In 3-4 days I'll send you the doc file. Please let me
know of your progress in research, the more that you hopefully
understood this paper as a way to your problems. ;-)
Kind regards,
Sergey.
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:<3fbb6827$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
Sergey Karavashkin
John,
Had you an intention to respond sensibly? ;-) Seemingly, you began
accusing me of self-reviewing and brought to NG the lexicon of cheap
pubs. True, I don't know, do you grasp the difference between the
abstract and review? ;-) I can say only, this is not your invention -
to clutch at the slip of opponent's pen, while understanding full lack
of own arguments. Yes, I was grammatically mistaken (the meaning
remained clear) - was it so important as your prejudice and cheap
jargon in communication with a colleague? Would you first learn the
ethics of behaviour, then learn a little the methodology of physics,
then get in discussion with your hoofs.
Sergey.
Sergey Karavashkin
Thank you, Leo, for comparing me with Shakespeare whose greatness is
for me unattainable even in Russian, though I actually sometimes
invent "new words" in English. I would like to see, how Anderson will
invent words in Russian! ;-)
Kind regards,
Sergey.
John Anderson
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:
You talked about "in our journal "SELF Transactions".
I responded to two things, "our" and "SELF".
It sounds like you were using the royal we and talking
about your private journal. The term SELF only reinforced
that.
If this "journal" only takes abstracts, which your present
post seems to imply, then it isn't a reviewed journal
Which is what I was saying that you implied.
You're not a colleague of mine, my friend, you're a crank.
John Anderson
Sergey Karavashkin
John, what will you think out next? ;-) Of course, you haven't visited
our journal and didn't see, the paper has two authors, and SELF is the
name of our laboratory (Special Laboratory for Fundamental
Elaboration). Poor baby! They have put him in a dark corner of
internet and didn't explain how to activate hyperlinks! But they had
no necessity to teach a baby, how to mud other's work. Anyway, you of
course cannot distinguish full text from the abstract and don't know,
what are the reasons of refereeing process: to check,
(a) is the manuscript within the scope of journal;
(b) the novelty of material;
(c) is the proof correct;
(d) is the material written and presented well.
Thus, should you really be my colleague physicist, you would enter our
journal and see, this is really the journal of our laboratory, so (a)
is satisfied. You would learn to read and would see, no one never
conducted such studies and obtained such results - this means, (b) is
also satisfied. You would reach the item 4.4 of the mentioned paper
and see, the calculations WE made on the basis of OUR phenomenology of
phenomenon are fully consistent with the experiental data; this is the
most weighty proof of correctness in physics. When bad boys from QM
try telling you, one phenomenon can be substantiated in different
ways, don't believe them. To begin with, try to imagine another
description of our experiment with the single conductor, but so that
it were consistent with the experimental results. Cannot you? So (c)
has been also satisfied. And (d) is satisfied automatically, as this
actually is our private journal. Should you be really the physicist,
you would concentrate on the material, not on the detail, has it such
oafish referees as you are which cannot match two words in their own
language, and you would not make a tragedy of shortcomings of our
translation but would be grateful that we have translated this
material for you from the language you don't know into your native.
And as far as you have not been taught even to such elementary things,
all your attempts to find fault in the things you never saw can raise
only my symphathy to the corner where 'they' have put you in the
internet. Poor baby, don't cry, your head is not fully quadratic, only
there where your single convolution bulges out. Don't try to butt with
it, baby, or the last will ossify into a horn. ;-)
Sergey.
Bob Brown
A simple experiment using an AC coil, rod to fit inside of coil, and
several washers that fit the rod, seems to contradict your evidence.
Using aluminum for the washers and steel for the rod, when AC
electricity is applyed to the coil, the washers will seem to float on
the rod. The strength of the field and the mass of the washers
determines where the washers will move to.
Although the experiment is used to demonstrate dimagnetic materials,
it also suggests that magnetic lines of force are not open.
As a thought experiment, what would happen if the earth spewed lines
of magnetism from it's axis. We would not have a clear astronomical
vewing that is found at the north pole. The magnetic lines of force
would probably distort viewing of stars.
This is my view on the subject. I refuse to use existing formulas to
explain the subject, because they are not conclusive one way or
another. This is one of the problems with convential thought of
electromagnetics.
Another disclaimer, I am not trying to suggest any changes to
convential thinking, only to offer a discussion point on this subject.
If I have not interperated your conclusions properly, please clarify
your position.
Harry
Dear Sergey,
I read your paper, but....I am very sorry to bring you bad news.In my
opinion it's all wrong, horribly wrong. I urge you to withdraw your paper
from Internet.
I have no problem with your introduction; also not with your equations and
not even with your experiments.
But I noticed a big misunderstanding with the application of the equations.
In short:
1. The induction according to standard theory is not related to the change
of B vector at the wire, but to the change of enclosed flux, that is, to the
total amount of change of field lines inside the enclosed area.
2. When you go from an infinitely small area loop to a closed wire that you
measure at each end you change the configuration into something different
from what you think. In fact you create a loop of which one part is that
piece of wire and the rest is your measurement system that closes the loop.
All in all, as far as I can see you measured nothing unusual, some of your
results I foresaw before reaching your data, and most or all other results
are easy to explain.
I propose to discuss details by personal email.
Sincerely,
Harald
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:a42650fc.03111...@posting.google.com...
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Bob,
Thank you for a very interesting questions. I'm answering with
pleasure. Only first I would ask you, please don't take offence where
I'm saying your point erroneous. I mean no attempt to sting you but
simply indicate, where the inexact judgement takes its root from the
conventional ideas of magnetism. ;-) I'm also pleased to tell you, we
appreciated your very important questions and made of your post and of
my respond an appendix to our paper. Please find it at
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v3_1/contents3.html#bob
There I was able to illustrate my respond with pictures which also can
be interesting for you. So you can read it here or in our journal.
In your post you oppose to our experiments another experiment with
levitating rings. You surely have read our paper to the end and
noticed, throughout the paper we oppose stationary and dynamic fields.
Stationary field has closed lines of force, and dynamic field has them
open. But there is one aspect that did not appear in the paper. It
begins with the question, how the alternating magnetic field of the
primary circuit affects the currents in secondary circuit? The answer
suggests itself: it affects just as stationary magnetic field does.
But the field of which we are speaking is dynamic. Yes, indeed. This
is just the feature which you perceived in the experiment with
levitating rings. The dynamic field of which we are speaking in our
paper is the induction field, and the field revealing in interaction
of currents is relevant to Ampere law. These are two different fields!
The first field EXCITES currents in the secondary circuit, and the
second field is able only to affect already existing currents. So,
when we in our paper compared dynamic magnetic field (induction field)
with stationary magnetic field, we essentially limited the comparison,
indeed. We had to limit, knowing by our bitter experience, how much
the brains of today physicists are "switched off". They didn't
understand even in this simplified form. So hearing your question, I'm
glad as seeing the sun from louring sky. Thank you again.
Having understood this feature, you will easily explain the experiment
with levitating rings. The current in the primary coil orients the
molecular currents in the ferromagnetic rod. With it the magnetic
forces in the coil and rod are added. But along the rod, the magnetism
decreases from the coil to the end of rod. So, if the rod is very
long, its end is known to do not attract the irons. The current
excited in the ring by molecular currents in the rod is OPPOSITE to
these currents - this means, also to the current in the coil; so the
ring will be pushed out from the coil to the end of rod, creating the
effect of levitation. If we take a coil with a thick wire and powerful
oscillator of low-frequency signals, and feed to this coil an
alternating voltage of few Hertz frequency (or rather even a fraction
of Hertz), we will see the coil not simply "floating up" but vibrating
on the rod! This occurs due to the dynamics of vibration processes.
The matter is, with sinusoidal current at its low frequency, during a
part of period the gravitation attraction will be more than the
buoyant force in amplitude, and this will cause the ring some falling;
during the rest part of half-period this falling will compensate,
wherethrough vibrations arise. We can avoid them, placing the coil
with the rod horizontally. And to avoid friction, we can hang the
rings on to a long thread. In this case we will see the rings only
pushing out to the end of rod.
I would like to draw your attention that the rings of aluminium will
be just pushed out to the end of rod corroborating the opposite
direction of induced currents.
In order to develop the experiment you have suggested, I would like to
recall the paper by Laurence Hecht "To Be, or Not to Be Or, How I
Discovered the Swindle of Special Relativity"
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html
which I recently reviewed having been asked by Aleksandr Timofeev in
sci.physics, thread "Gravitation and Maxwell's Electrodynamics,
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS", my post to him of 2003-11-21. In that paper the
author some changes the experiment in which the conductor with the
current moves along the rails with the current (so-called relsotron).
See the standard diagram of this experiment in Fig. 1. Instead the
copper conductor, the author took it of steel, with it the direction
of motion has changed. Among other things, I showed to the author that
in this case we see two effects at the same time. The first effect is
the interaction of currents in rails and current in conductor. The
second effect is the interaction of magnetic field in the ferromagnet
with magnetic field of the current in rails. The first effect
conditions the change of direction of motion of conductor when the
current in rails changed, and the second effect is one-directed. Then
the diagram shown in Fig. 1 will change and take the appearance shown
in Fig. 2.
Just this effect takes place in case if you change the aluminium rings
by those of steel. With it in the steel ring there will excite both
the inductive current and induced magnetism (orientational)! The force
caused by the induction current will push the ring out, and
orientational magnetism will attract the ring to the coil. The balance
of these forces will provide the resulting force which in case of
steel ring will be directed towards the coil.
We can easily check the presence of two forces affecting the steel
ring by the following experiment. Take a rod, put on it a coil and
place them horizontally, as we see it in Fig. 3. Cut the steel ring
across its cross-section and solder to the boundaries of gap flexible
COPPER taps, then hang the coil on to a long thread. Naturally, the
ring will deviate towards the coil. If now we register this deviation
and close the taps, this deviation will diminish! ;-)
Such is my position in this subject, and it doesn't contradict the
results we have obtained in the paper. The experiment you have
suggested from the conventional point of view cannot tell us of the
open lines of force of magnetic field; as you see from the said above,
levitation is provided by the orientational magnetic field whose lines
of force are closed. Or rather, in the representation understandable
now, this is so.
The same, the Earth never can spew the lines of force of ORIENTATIONAL
magnetic field, so don't worry of our clear astronomic vision. Another
thing, we still have unstudied or poorly studied too many things
concerning celestial bodies. In particular, we described some features
of star magnetic field formation in the first part of chapter 2 of our
monograph "Some aspects of the Earth evolution"
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/chapter2a/c2a67/c2a67.html
Of course, this is far from all necessary for complete understanding
of these processes, and we are going on studying them in the next
parts and chapters. But this beginning shows that magnetic field
doesn't separate from the body, but in case of hot body there forms a
double magnetic "cocoon", and magnetic force lines of the core of star
are "embedded" by the external field. I would like to mark especially,
when speaking of embedded lines of force of magnetic field, I in no
case suppose any force that would affect the lines of force. These
lines are the fiction introduced by Faraday to make the field
conveniently visual, so nothing can physically affect this fiction, as
the fractal theory supposes. The lines of force simply show the
direction of the force action at a definite point of space, nothing
more. In presence of several fields in space, the trial body is
affected by the resulting force dependent on the space distribution of
these fields. So at a definite region of space there will dominate one
field, and at another region - another field. Naturally, if we compare
the pattern of force lines in each region where one of fields
dominated, with the distribution of lines of force in case when the
second field was absent, we will have an impression that the lines of
force are "compressed", though factually nothing of the kind will take
place. Such representation of compression is especially intensively
developed by supporters of relativistic conceptions, though it is a
roughest mistake in physics. If speaking of our work on magnetic field
of stars, I would draw your attention that colleagues here fully
ignored our advertisement of this paper, though the counter on our web
site turns round as a fan, and should Angelfire not diminish the
number, by our checked data, there would be already not 300 but no
less than 3000 visitors. ;-) In particular, 423 colleagues have
visited these two last papers during last four weeks, and we still
have in average about 10 visitors daily. But my threads here keep
silence, except idle squabbling like with John Anderson. ;-) This is
the reason of my caution of which I told you above. However the
corollaries of our experiments are vast. They fully change the
conception of interaction of charges with magnetic field and have a
great practical application. True, for it one has to know things well
ahead than we wrote in this paper... ;-)
I hope, I answered your questions, and I'm ready to keep the
discussion up in order you to understand better.
Kind regards,
Sergey.
Sergey Karavashkin
> Dear Sergey,
>
> I read your paper, but....I am very sorry to bring you bad news.In my
> opinion it's all wrong, horribly wrong. I urge you to withdraw your paper
> from Internet.
> I have no problem with your introduction; also not with your equations and
> not even with your experiments.
> But I noticed a big misunderstanding with the application of the equations.
>
> In short:
>
> 1. The induction according to standard theory is not related to the change
> of B vector at the wire, but to the change of enclosed flux, that is, to the
> total amount of change of field lines inside the enclosed area.
>
> 2. When you go from an infinitely small area loop to a closed wire that you
> measure at each end you change the configuration into something different
> from what you think. In fact you create a loop of which one part is that
> piece of wire and the rest is your measurement system that closes the loop.
>
> All in all, as far as I can see you measured nothing unusual, some of your
> results I foresaw before reaching your data, and most or all other results
> are easy to explain.
>
>
> I propose to discuss details by personal email.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Harald
>
Some time ago I explained you, I have the internet access twice a
week. Once I can take your post, and another time I can load my reply.
So please have a patience and find my respond here
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/b/harry/harry.html
with figures, or read here as a simple text:
Dear Harald,
Unfortunately, I still don't see the reasons to be upset, neither to
withdraw this paper from the web. You are saying yourself,
>I have no problem with your introduction; also not with your
equations and
>not even with your experiments.
Is not it principal, as from it all other follows. ;-)
Now in turn.
1. You are stating,
>The induction according to standard theory is not related to the
change
>of B vector at the wire, but to the change of enclosed flux, that is,
to the
>total amount of change of field lines inside the enclosed area.
As far as I know, you always read attentively and could not disregard
that when we described the standard representation, we emphasised this
point too. Otherwise, why had we to put Fig. 3 into page 74 of our
paper? ;-) The difference between vector B variation and variation of
flux of vector is insufficient in case of stationary loop and
unchanged position between loops, as at constant cross-section and
position of secondary loop (just the case of our experimental study),
the flux variation is tantamount to the vector variation. Have you
another opinion? ;-)
Right away I would answer your next question which you did not ask:
how much limited is the studied statement of problem? I can assure
you, from the obtained results the most general corollaries follow.
Simply we should take into account the known fact that the experiment
is always carried out at the conditions at which the properties of
studied phenomenon reveal in the most visual way. Just this stipulated
the scheme of experimental techniques. With mutually moving loops or
varied cross-section of loops in the course of experiment, there would
always be present factors of variation of density, or cross-section,
of flux which would actually blur the pattern, not allowing to
conclude provably. By this reason we chose for the first experiment
the construction of air transformer with the internal and external
secondary windings. If you look at Fig. 4 of the paper, page 75, where
we showed the lines of force of magnetic field in standard
representation, you will see, for the internal winding the flux is
directed upwards, and for external winding - downwards the figure. Now
please determine the direction of induced currents on the basis of
standard representation and make sure, they have to be directed
oppositely. But you see, they are one-directed. Now try to close these
lines of force. ;-) Thus, the obvious results (as you write) are not
so much obvious in the view of conventional formalism. True, here
exists one more merely virtual possibility - to invert the vector of
cross-section of secondary loops. However, if you try to do so, I will
simply suggest you to conduct a set of experiments shown here in Fig.
1.
Fig. 1. Experiment with sequentially increasing cross-section of
secondary loop (blue) from the enclosed into the primary loop (a) to
the embracing it (d). The primary loop is shown in red.
You see in this figure, in each next experiment the cross-section of
secondary loop some increases, gradually transiting from the enclosed
loop to that embrasing. If you think these four steps not enough, you
can increase the number of intermediate experiments. The main aim is,
you would be able to conclude surely, when exactly the direction of
vector of the loop cross-section changes. ;-) And I would like to
notice, if you carry out all these experiments at the same time, you
would obtain just the result as we obtained in our first experiment
for all connected loops. If you are able, none the less, to reveal the
moment when the secondary loop inverts, I will sent you a chocolate
sweet. ;-)
Then I would suggest you to conduct an experiment with the secondary
winding reeled up BETWEEN the turns of primary winding, as it is shown
here in Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. Experiment with the air transformer made by reeling up the
secondary winding (blue) between the turns of primary winding (red)
As you can see in this figure, if you think the force lines of
magnetic field close (lilac circulation arrows), where the turns of
secondary winding are located, the magnetic fields are subtracted, -
consequently, emf will not be induced at all. But you know, this is
not so, though the technique based on mutual subtracting of magnetic
fields is quite standard. It is used, for example, to determine the
resulting field of molecular magnets.
You see, the experiment described in our paper is far from being only,
and everywhere we see one and the same problem  closed lines
of force of induction. Open them  and everything takes its
place. And you are saying, we showed nothing new in our experiments.
Are you surely unbiased here?
This is just the aspect that you and other colleagues didn't want to
see when I multiply suggested you: read and analyse the conservation
laws for dynamic fields that we have proven and published for you. You
all brushed aside, though I said, you can brush aside or take offence,
but the nature is such as it is. Ignoring its regularities, you would
stop to be physicists, nothing more.
Thus, you could expect the result in view of practice, not in view of
existing phenomenology. Again, when the theses have been proven and
the points made, everything is so simple and obvious, but by some
reason I didn't see such approaches before neither from you nor from
others. You see, this undoubtedly is a discovery that essentially
changes the very idea of magnetic fields. Even when I said you, the
heart of interaction in magnetic field has not been taken into account
finally, you also brushed aside (or rather, you left my words without
answering). If now you are saying, nothing new in it, would you tell
us, what will be the next step in cognition of this regularity? I will
send you a second sweet! ;-)
Especially I would like to touch the force lines within the selected
region. As is known, in all field diagrams you draw the distribution
of momentary force lines of the field. If you said, the matter is only
in changing density of lines of force, how can you understand the
density of these lines when the flux changes direction? You know, flux
changes not only its value but direction too, does not it? ;-)
2. Your second question is more interesting, though we much
enlightened it in our paper. An attempt to represent the taps from
probe in the gap as the continuation of loop is quite natural and we
though of it when developed the technique of second experiment. Having
read the technique of second experiment in the item 2.2, page 79, you
should draw your attention to the features about which we said in that
item. First, as you can see from Fig. 11, out of region of
measurement, the field is localised at the core and in both rods has
the same direction of momentary field of vector B. Second and the
main, the taps of frame shown in Fig. 12 of paper, page 79, embrace
both lateral rods of the core and are placed quite far from them. You
can easily make sure from the construction shown in Fig. 3 here that
the induction emf in taps is directed oppositely  this means,
it is subtracted!
Fig. 3. General appearance of measuring frame in the gap of core
Thereupon we measure only emf that is induced in the central rod of
frame.
Now let us consider, how the loop transforms from round to ellipsoidal
shape. When you are stating,
>When you go from an infinitely small area loop to a closed wire that
you
>measure at each end you change the configuration into something
different
>from what you think.
you are a bit inexact. If the field was localised in some region of
space - and just this stipulated the transition from compressed loop
in Fig. 9 of paper to the single wire in Fig. 10 in the same page 78,
- then the taps are located out of the region of field. Have you paid
no attention to this point? You have an opportunity to do so. ;-) If
we add to it a compensation measuring frame, nothing to say of closed
loop.
You can otherwise make sure in what I'm saying. It would be enough to
change the frame a little, adding to it the second central wire, which
we should make movable, as opposite to the first, as it is shown in
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Circuit with the two-path central conductor
In this circuit, if in the beginning of experiment both conductors are
equally distanced from the axis of gap, then, really, total emf will
be zero. This additionally checks the fact that the taps have no
effect on the measurement. When we move the movable conductor towards
immovable, according to conventional phenomenology, the inductive emf
cannot appear, as we still measure the difference in voltage between
the opposite points of closed loop. Moreover, the cross-section
between the conductors diminishes. But really emf will appear and grow
with diminished distance between conductors, because symmetry of
location of conductors as to the axis of gap will be disturbed the
more the closer will they be located to each other. True, the value of
this emf will be first very small, as each rod is short-circuited to
the second rod, and emf in them directed oppositely. But we can
increase it, making the conductors of high-Ohm material  for
example, of constantan, with a small cross-section. This will not
change the difference between the phenomenologies of expected effects,
but measurements will become well easier. But even out of it, even if
you take conductors of copper, in transition of movable conductor
through the gap axis the total emf will abruptly increase, as emfs in
the arms will be already one-directed, only will have different
amplitudes. We simply have to account that, because the conductors are
mutually closed, emf will grow nonlinearly with decreasing distance
between the conductors. When the conductors coincide, emf will be
maximal! At minimal cross-section of loop, from the viewpoint of
conventional phenomenology! And you are saying, flux of vector! Which
flux of vector will be in coincidence of conductors?
So I still see not a least reason to withdraw our paper or to pass to
an underground discussion. We already had an underground discussion,
and you disappeared just at the moment when understood me right. You
would first induce in correspondence with the laws of nature, not
towards the salvage of rotten dogmata. It would be more useful and
productive. I told you, but you did not believe…
Regards,
Sergey.
Harry
> Dear Harald,
>
> Some time ago I explained you, I have the internet access twice a
> week. Once I can take your post, and another time I can load my reply.
> So please have a patience and find my respond here
>
> http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/b/harry/harry.html
>
> with figures, or read here as a simple text:
>
>
> Dear Harald,
>
> Unfortunately, I still don't see the reasons to be upset, neither to
> withdraw this paper from the web. You are saying yourself,
>
> >I have no problem with your introduction; also not with your
> equations and
> >not even with your experiments.
>
> Is not it principal, as from it all other follows. ;-)
>
> Now in turn.
>
> 1. You are stating,
>
> >The induction according to standard theory is not related to the
> change
> >of B vector at the wire, but to the change of enclosed flux, that is,
> to the
> >total amount of change of field lines inside the enclosed area.
>
> As far as I know, you always read attentively and could not disregard
> that when we described the standard representation, we emphasised this
> point too. Otherwise, why had we to put Fig. 3 into page 74 of our
> paper? ;-)
Indeed, at that point, it looked like you understand it perfecly well.
Now it looks like the meaning of "field lines inside enclosed area" is
not understood by you.
> The difference between vector B variation and variation of
> flux of vector is insufficient in case of stationary loop and
> unchanged position between loops, as at constant cross-section and
> position of secondary loop (just the case of our experimental study),
> the flux variation is tantamount to the vector variation. Have you
> another opinion? ;-)
Here a good understanding of what you mean may be important. If I
understand you well, then yes, I do have a very different opinion!
The phrase in your paper that I do understand for sure:
"Thus, if the conventional treatment of induction is true, the phase
shift between the ... interior and exterior secondary loops has to be
equal to 180 degrees."
That is where I got a sick feeling in my stomach, for that is
certainly not the case, as set out in fig.3, the phase shift must be 0
degrees!
SNIP
> If you look at Fig. 4 of the paper, page 75, where
> we showed the lines of force of magnetic field in standard
> representation, you will see, for the internal winding the flux is
> directed upwards, and for external winding - downwards the figure.
Again, NO! The direction of the lines of force is not equal to the
direction of the net enclosed flux. In fact it was useful in a way to
be confronted with it in this way, as more clearly than in the past I
realise how non-local the effect is - quite magical without an ether
theory.
To say it in plain English: in conventional electromagnetic theory,
the local magnetic field vector change is irrelevant for the induced
current.
What counts is the average magnetic field inside the loop, and not the
magnetic field at the wire.
It very much looks like you confused a line integral with a surface
integral. :-(
To put the equation in another way, with V =voltage, S = surface and
B' = average magnetic field inside the loop: V = S * dB'/dt .
In your fig.4 the secondary windings enclose about the same amount of
flux, in fact it may be perfectly the same as the surface that the
outer one has more than the inner one, contains about an equal amount
of upward and downward flux.
> Now
> please determine the direction of induced currents on the basis of
> standard representation and make sure, they have to be directed
> oppositely.
Again: No!
> But you see, they are one-directed. Now try to close these
> lines of force. ;-)
And lines of force at a wire are independent of magnetic induction in
the wire...
This is where I stop now, for as long as this is not cleared up, it is
useless to discuss the other, strongly related points; and when it is
cleared up, most other points will become clear.
Sincerely,
Harald
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Harald,
You have snipped all my explanations and make appearance as if there
was nothing in my post except you retained. Well, I will not comment
it, but in order to lift finally the question of flux of vector that
you are imposing and to show you your statement erroneous and related
to the conventional electromagnetic theory only in your mind:
>in conventional electromagnetic theory,
>the local magnetic field vector change is irrelevant for the induced
>current.
>What counts is the average magnetic field inside the loop, and not
the
>magnetic field at the wire
I suggest to carry out a very simple experiment shown in Fig. 1which
you can see with this text at
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/b/harry2/harry2.html
Fig. 1
Take two cores of the same material and assemble them so that their
cross-sections be equal but as if turned perpendicularly relatively
each other. On these cores, reel up the windings with equal number of
turns of wire having the same diameter. The width of gap is also the
same in both cores, and one source serves for both. Thus, the only
difference between them will be that one plane of cross-section is
turrned as to another. To check the cores identity, we can measure
their inductance. If we made this all carefully, it has to be in
limits of very small error (1  2 %).
Let us also make a frame WITHOUT compensation (usual loop with large
perimeter) so that its size was much more than the size of
cross-section of loop. Insert the frame into the gaps of cores so that
in both cases its rod in the gap was exactly at the interior boundary
of gap. Thus, in both cases the cross-section of flux going through
the secondary circuit is the same and this flux will average (your
personal invention) equally across the section, isn't it just your
statement?
>To put the equation in another way, with V =voltage, S = surface and
>B' = average magnetic field inside the loop: V = S * dB'/dt .
I would like to notice here, I'm intentionally saying of a large size
of frame, as in this case the difference in average across the
cross-section of gap will be very, very negligible.
Now let us experiment. You already have guessed, in this circuit, with
the frame having constant cross-section, being immovable relatively
core and at constant cross-section of gap, you have to yield the
inductive emf the same in both gaps, and my emf has to dependent on
ratio between the long and short sides of gap. To lift all additional
doubts because of dispersion, let us make this ratio considerable -
for example, 1/3 or 1/4. So, even with all your distrust, the
difference between our results will be trustworthy sufficient.
Are you ready to check it and make sure? ;-)
Sergey.
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Harald,
You have snipped all my explanations and make appearance as if there
was nothing in my post except you retained. Well, I will not comment
it, but in order to lift finally the question of flux of vector that
you are imposing and to show you your statement erroneous and related
to the conventional electromagnetic theory only in your mind:
>in conventional electromagnetic theory,
>the local magnetic field vector change is irrelevant for the induced
>current.
>What counts is the average magnetic field inside the loop, and not
the
>magnetic field at the wire
I suggest to carry out a very simple experiment shown in Fig. 1which
you can see with this text at
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/b/harry2/harry2.html
Fig. 1
Take two cores of the same material and assemble them so that their
cross-sections be equal but as if turned perpendicularly relatively
each other. On these cores, reel up the windings with equal number of
turns of wire having the same diameter. The width of gap is also the
same in both cores, and one source serves for both. Thus, the only
difference between them will be that one plane of cross-section is
turrned as to another. To check the cores identity, we can measure
their inductance. If we made this all carefully, it has to be in
limits of very small error (1  2 %).
Let us also make a frame WITHOUT compensation (usual loop with large
perimeter) so that its size was much more than the size of
cross-section of loop. Insert the frame into the gaps of cores so that
in both cases its rod in the gap was exactly at the interior boundary
of gap. Thus, in both cases the cross-section of flux going through
the secondary circuit is the same and this flux will average (your
personal invention) equally across the section, isn't it just your
statement?
>To put the equation in another way, with V =voltage, S = surface and
>B' = average magnetic field inside the loop: V = S * dB'/dt .
Harry
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:a42650fc.03121...@posting.google.com...
> harald.v...@epfl.ch (Harry) wrote in message
news:<3bff5641.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> > self...@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message
news:<a42650fc.0312...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:<3fcc646c$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> > SNIP
> > > Dear Harald,
> > >
> > > Some time ago I explained you, I have the internet access twice a
> > > week. Once I can take your post, and another time I can load my reply.
> > > So please have a patience and find my respond here
> > >
> > > http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/b/harry/harry.html
> > >
> > > with figures, or read here as a simple text:
Nice picture! And this one is very clear, even without text.
> > > Dear Harald,
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, I still don't see the reasons to be upset, neither to
> > > withdraw this paper from the web. You are saying yourself,
> > >
> > > >I have no problem with your introduction; also not with your
> > equations and not even with your experiments.
> > >
> > > Is not it principal, as from it all other follows. ;-)
No, not even in two postings I was able to communicate to you what the
problem is...
despite that in my comments I SNIPPED away most of the thigns that are
irrelevant to my objection!
In order to keep it compact, I will again remove most of what is not
necessary or even confusing, so that the emphasis will be right
> > > Now in turn.
> > >
> > > 1. You are stating,
> > >
> > > >The induction according to standard theory is not related to the
> > change
> > > >of B vector at the wire, but to the change of enclosed flux, that is,
> > to the
> > > >total amount of change of field lines inside the enclosed area.
SNIP
> > The phrase in your paper that I do understand for sure:
> > "Thus, if the conventional treatment of induction is true, the phase
> > shift between the ... interior and exterior secondary loops has to be
> > equal to 180 degrees."
> >
> > That is where I got a sick feeling in my stomach, for that is
> > certainly not the case, as set out in fig.3, the phase shift must be 0
> > degrees!
> >
> > SNIP
> > > If you look at Fig. 4 of the paper, page 75, where
> > > we showed the lines of force of magnetic field in standard
> > > representation, you will see, for the internal winding the flux is
> > > directed upwards, and for external winding - downwards the figure.
> >
> > Again, NO! The direction of the lines of force is not equal to the
> > direction of the net enclosed flux. In fact it was useful in a way to
> > be confronted with it in this way, as more clearly than in the past I
> > realise how non-local the effect is - quite magical without an ether
> > theory.
> > To say it in plain English: in conventional electromagnetic theory,
> > the local magnetic field vector change is irrelevant for the induced
> > current.
> > What counts is the average magnetic field inside the loop, and not the
> > magnetic field at the wire.
> > It very much looks like you confused a line integral with a surface
> > integral. :-(
-> You did not comment on that; but it is perhaps the main point!
Instead of explaining your understanding on what Faraday claimed, you now
replied:
> I suggest to carry out a very simple experiment.
[see further]
Although it may be enlightening to know what really happens, it will in
principle not help to solve the question about what the law of Faraday (I
think it was him) predicts! But in practice it may be useful, in another
way.
> > To put the equation in another way, with V =voltage, S = surface and
> > B' = average magnetic field inside the loop: V = S * dB'/dt .
> Thus, in both cases the cross-section of flux going through
> the secondary circuit is the same and this flux will average (your
> personal invention) equally across the section, isn't it just your
> statement?.
Again, your comment is as part of an experiment to perform, and not about
the theory. But you nearly correctly understood me:
My "personal invention" about the meaning of a surface integral is that it
gives you the total (normal) flux that is enclosed by the loop -done by
multiplying the local B in the area with the dx and dy - and that is the
same as the average (normal) B times the surface inside the loop.
SNIP
> I suggest to carry out a very simple experiment shown in Fig. 1which
> you can see with this text at
>
> http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/b/harry2/harry2.html
>
> Fig. 1
> Take two cores of the same material and assemble them so that their
> cross-sections be equal but as if turned perpendicularly relatively
> each other. On these cores, reel up the windings with equal number of
> turns of wire having the same diameter. The width of gap is also the
> same in both cores, and one source serves for both. Thus, the only
> difference between them will be that one plane of cross-section is
> turrned as to another. To check the cores identity, we can measure
> their inductance. If we made this all carefully, it has to be in
> limits of very small error.
>
> Let us also make a frame WITHOUT compensation (usual loop with large
> perimeter) so that its size was much more than the size of
> cross-section of loop. Insert the frame into the gaps of cores so that
> in both cases its rod in the gap was exactly at the interior boundary
> of gap. Thus, in both cases the cross-section of flux going through
> the secondary circuit is the same and this flux will average (your
> personal invention) equally across the section, isn't it just your
> statement?
> I would like to notice here, I'm intentionally saying of a large size
> of frame, as in this case the difference in average across the
> cross-section of gap will be very, very negligible.
>
> Now let us experiment. You already have guessed, in this circuit, with
> the frame having constant cross-section, being immovable relatively
> core and at constant cross-section of gap, you have to yield the
> inductive emf the same in both gaps, and my emf has to dependent on
> ratio between the long and short sides of gap. To lift all additional
> doubts because of dispersion, let us make this ratio considerable -
> for example, 1/3 or 1/4. So, even with all your distrust, the
> difference between our results will be trustworthy sufficient.
>
> Are you ready to check it and make sure? ;-)
Now, here is again the confusion between "you" and "my": I don't have my own
theory.
I thought that the purpose of your paper was to compare two theories in
practice. In your paper you claimed that the test results are not according
to the standard theory, while I noticed nothing different from expectation.
And you did not directly reply to that.
However, in your newly proposed experiment, clearly you predict something
else than the books: You claim that the induced voltage is not determined by
the amount of enclosed flux, but by the amount of magnetic field on the
wire, and you propose the new experiment to decide.
Am I right?
I think it's a good idea, and your set-up looks OK to me. You can simplify
the experiment by only using the second configuration, and move the loop
along the air gap, starting from outside. In standard theory, the voltage
should increase until you enclose all flux, after which it should be
constant; while in your theory, it should remain constant until you enclose
all flux, after which it should drop. Am I right?
Nevertheless, it would be extremely surprising if you are right: not only
*someone* would have noticed the above effects by now. Worse, doubling the
circumference of a loop in a homogenous field is expected to result in 4
times as much voltage, while according to your hypothesis it results in only
twice as much voltage (if I am wrong about your prediction, please
elaborate). I think that such a thing is impossible to "miss"!
All the best,
Harald
Sergey Karavashkin
> See below; I intertwine some of your comments with mine.
>
> "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
> news:a42650fc.03121...@posting.google.com...
> > harald.v...@epfl.ch (Harry) wrote in message
> news:<3bff5641.03121...@posting.google.com>...
> > > self...@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message
> news:<a42650fc.0312...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:<3fcc646c$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> SNIP
> > > > Dear Harald,
> > > >
> > > > Some time ago I explained you, I have the internet access twice a
> > > > week. Once I can take your post, and another time I can load my reply.
> > > > So please have a patience and find my respond here
> > > >
> > > > http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/b/harry/harry.html
> > > >
> > > > with figures, or read here as a simple text:
>
> Nice picture! And this one is very clear, even without text.
I'm pleased much, this was the aim of my efforts. ;-)
Why, figures that you liked have commented. I especially choose the
circuits showing that just the average field is irrelevant. Further I
will broaden this theme a little.
>
> Instead of explaining your understanding on what Faraday claimed, you now
> replied:
>
> > I suggest to carry out a very simple experiment.
Right. Because namely in this experiment lies the answer to your
question and my understanding of Faraday.
>
> [see further]
>
> Although it may be enlightening to know what really happens, it will in
> principle not help to solve the question about what the law of Faraday (I
> think it was him) predicts! But in practice it may be useful, in another
> way.
See, Harald, for complete understanding of induction processes we have
to pass a definite way. This what you read in our paper shows the
entrance into the labyrinth but not the final output. Faraday whose
heritage were experiments, not formulas, worked with loops and coils,
so he described them. Maxwell and then hertz have formalised Faraday's
experiments and fixed in formulas his experimental results. When you
read our paper, you could see, we paid much attention just to, how to
avoid loops, to see, how the induction law transforms in absence of
loop. This was the main goal. Simply you shouldn't expect everything
at once from one paper, then that what we have done will be more
clear. ;-)
>
> > > To put the equation in another way, with V =voltage, S = surface and
> > > B' = average magnetic field inside the loop: V = S * dB'/dt .
>
> > Thus, in both cases the cross-section of flux going through
> > the secondary circuit is the same and this flux will average (your
> > personal invention) equally across the section, isn't it just your
> > statement?.
>
> Again, your comment is as part of an experiment to perform, and not about
> the theory. But you nearly correctly understood me:
> My "personal invention" about the meaning of a surface integral is that it
> gives you the total (normal) flux that is enclosed by the loop -done by
> multiplying the local B in the area with the dx and dy - and that is the
> same as the average (normal) B times the surface inside the loop.
You see, Harald, numerical coincidence of results is stipulated by
theorems, and the main, by vector algebra transforms, but electron of
secondary loop cannot know what occurs out of particular physical
point where it is located. When you are saying of the flux of vector
crossing the loop, you conventionally do not ponder that the very idea
of force line means the tangent to the direction of force action or to
the field strength at PARTICULAR point. Usually, when we consider the
flux of vector, we rarely make this flux inhomogeneous in
cross-section. In this way we close the door to comprehend the
phenomenon. This is why in the circuits of my previous message I
formed just inhomogeneous field in the loop. You clearly see from it
that, when averaging the flux of vector across the section, you lose
the essence of processes of induction interaction. But if you do not
average, then a number of questions arise which we study in our paper.
You are right, there is no new theory in our paper. But who prevents
us to create a team, to appeal for funding and to advance step by step
into the depths of labyrinth? Is not it a standard practice in
scientific circles? ;-)
Everything what you saw in that new experiment has been fully
presented in those which we stated in the paper. To show it, I suggest
to refine a little the experiment from my previous post. Let us extend
the loop from the gap, in any core. Factually this will be the same as
in second and third experiments of paper. With it the rod of loop in
the gap will be in the field shown in figure that you can see at
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/b/harry3/harry3.html
Fig. 1
In this figure you see the cross-section of rod of loop (red circle)
in two extreme locations. You see that during the displacement the
direction of instantaneous magnetic field in the gap does not change.
Only the frame comes out of the gap. And during going out of gap, the
direction of instantaneous flux of vector B that crosses the
cross-section of frame also will not change, changes only the absolute
value of your dear "average flux". Thus, on whatever variation of
standard formalism would you rely, you will not get the inversion of
flux with the loop coming out of gap. At the same time the
experimental results will show you the same inversion of emf at the
centre of gap as in the second experiment of paper. This means, not
everything in the paper is so much expectable? ;-) Simply you would
analyse these results deeper, in particular the condition of
compensation of parasitic emfs in the loop. Instead to do so, you
snipped the substantiation from my before-last post with Fig. 3 as
irrelevant. I'm inserting this figure again.
Fig. 3 from the previous post
In this figure you can see the frame just compensative and that it
allows to measure just the inductance in the rod, not in the loop.
Though in the paper we showed, it is unnecessary to apply the
compensative frame. Simply we have to fulfil few conditions (this is
what I'm adding now). The first condition has been indicated in the
paper - this is localisation of magnetic field. Second condition is
visual from the experiment of my previous post which puzzled you
 this is the location of taps as far as possible from the rod
of core. The compensative construction of frame only provides the
reliability of measurement but is not necessary if these conditions
have been fulfilled. You have skipped this all, and now you are
saying, you don't understand. Naturally. This is just about what I'm
tired to tell in the newsgroups. Take any question and analyse it
namely as it is. Try to turn this toy, not confining yourself to the
edges given by conventional conceptions. Try to get to know, what will
occur if you change the conditions of experiment. Your eyes will get
open.
In order to advance more fruitfully in understanding, we need a funded
project. This is not a request, and I don't mean a least to insist,
only I already told you this simple thing and now recall by the way.
Then you could not solve the problem and now you cannot comprehend the
input to this labyrinth that leads just to the problem which you did
not solve. These are all features. In reality this all is very simple.
;-)
Kind regards,
Sergey.
Harry
After this I give up!
I showed you that your interpretation of the magnetic equations must be
wrong, and I claimed that your experiments in your paper are, as far as I
can see but after very careful examination, in agreement with standard
theory. You did not reply to that, but you proposed a new, simpler
experiment that would indeed distinguish between your theory and standard
theory.
I encouraged you to that experiment, and even how you can simplify it even
more, so you can do it completely in less than one day.
But I also pointed out why it is certain that you are wrong, because your
theory has the wrong scaling factor, it yields wrong dimensions! Again, you
did not answer on that.
But now you claim that one of your other experiments is the same:
"Everything what you saw in that new experiment has been fully presented in
those which we stated in the paper. "
You know that I disagree, and obviously you did not believe that I had
carefully studied your experiments.
However, I did not discuss it in detail.. I do not think that your last
fig.2 changes anything.
For locating B, we must look at the magnetic flux. Almost all magnetic flux
goes through the metal. You have two magnetic circuits next to each other
with the flux going round in the same sense. As a result, the flux of the
left windings goes opposite through the central part as the flux in the
right windings:
^ > v ^ > v
^ v ^ v
^ < v ^ < v
Your double probe-loop makes things complex. You measure in that central
part, the rest remaining equal, likely. In the central position you should
measure nothing, as everything is compensated, in each half loop the total
up flux is the same as the total down flux. It looks to me that you pick up
the potential from the currents due to the average vertical total fluxes,
which change when you move out of the central position.
For example, going with your frame to the left in my sketch, you will get a
net "up" flux in your left half loop and net "down" flux in the other part,
so that they add up to give a voltage between the pick-up points.
Have a nice end of 2003!
Harald
Sergey Karavashkin
Mysterious human soul! It happens, you can buy a lamb but don't want;
it happens, you want to buy a lamb, but cannot. When I answer your
questions, you delete my explanations and say, I don't answer. When I
persuaded you, and you have admitted - yes, persuaded! - what makes
you saying again, this all is none the less wrong, you are giving up
to persuade me obstinate, and even that it were you who
[Harald, 2003-12-22]
I encouraged you to that experiment, and even how you can simplify it
even
more, so you can do it completely in less than one day.
[Sergey]
Of course, I understand, how unexpected is this what you saw in our
experiments. And such steep turn from
[Harald, 2003-12-02]
In my opinion it's all wrong, horribly wrong. I urge you to withdraw
your paper from Internet.
[Sergey]
to
[Harald, 2003-12-10]
However, in your newly proposed experiment, clearly you predict
something else than the books: You claim that the induced voltage is
not determined by the amount of enclosed flux, but by the amount of
magnetic field on the wire, and you propose the new experiment to
decide. Am I right?
[Sergey]
Undoubtedly, such transformation was not so easy for you. The more
that your understanding yet doesn't reflect exactly the process I
describe. Maybe, this is why you are so enigmatic and still are
insistently trying to reduce our experiments to your averaged
loops...! ;-)
Only I cannot catch, to which experiments have you encouraged me if we
have conducted them seven years ago in much more volume than we
presented in the paper. On the contrary, because the educational level
of West colleagues, regrettably, does not offer them to analyse the
phenomena enough deeply, and deep explanation is immediately reduced
to language difficulties or errors, we made one survey paper from
three large. And only you, Bob and Anderson responded (if his reaction
can be attributed as a respond). And Bill on
alt.engineering.electrical also discussed ... my language. All my
attempts to clear, what namely cannot he understand, remained without
reply. ;-) And what strikes - when someone accuses me that I didn't
answer, hiding under it the admission that I have proven. What's the
cause of such behaviour?! Today it's me who's right, tomorrow it will
be you, a day after someone else. This is just the development!
Please re-read your phrase whole:
[Harald, 2003-12-22]
You did not reply to that, but you proposed a new, simpler
experiment that would indeed distinguish between your theory and
standard
theory.
[Sergey]
and tell me, with your above abrupt transition from denial to
admittance, to which part of this phrase have I to react? If I did not
reply, how have you changed your opinion? If I did, why this first
part of your phrase is here? Before representing you the experiment
with two cores, I wrote you so:
(Citation from my post to you of 2003-12-14)
[Sergey]
You have snipped all my explanations and make appearance as if there
was nothing in my post except you retained. Well, I will not comment
it, but in order to lift finally the question of flux of vector that
you are imposing and to show you your statement erroneous and related
to the conventional electromagnetic theory only in your mind:
[Harald]
in conventional electromagnetic theory, the local magnetic field
vector change is irrelevant for the induced current. What counts is
the average magnetic field inside the loop, and not the magnetic field
at the wire"
[Sergey]
I suggest to carry out a very simple experiment shown in Fig. 1.
(Uncitation)
[Sergey]
Doesn't it show you, I simply had no wish to dig into long fruitless
discussion and lifted your question basically, having suggested the
check experiment. Well, to what I didn't answer? ;-)
Again, you are saying,
[Harald, 2003-12-22]
I encouraged you to that experiment, and even how you can simplify it
even
more, so you can do it completely in less than one day.
But I also pointed out why it is certain that you are wrong, because
your
theory has the wrong scaling factor, it yields wrong dimensions!
Again, you
did not answer on that.
[Sergey]
I have re-read all your posts in this thread and couldn't find even a
hint of this. Maybe, you were about and forgot? ;-)
And my simplifications, as you called them, factually were not
simplifications. However, doing not answering to my variant of
extending a loop from gap, you are going on insisting on averaged
fluxes. Or rather, now not averaged, but none the less determining the
inversion of emf in the centre of gap:
[Harald, 2003-12-22]
I do not think that your last fig.2 changes anything.
For locating B, we must look at the magnetic flux. Almost all magnetic
flux
goes through the metal. You have two magnetic circuits next to each
other
with the flux going round in the same sense. As a result, the flux of
the
left windings goes opposite through the central part as the flux in
the
right windings
[Sergey]
But I twice have drawn you the figure showing flux directions in the
experiment. In the side rods of core the fluxes are one-side directed
(in the figure - upwards). These fluxes are one-directed in the
central rod! What have you to the right? And to the left? Believe me,
I can understand noting from you post. What about I told you so long
time? What explained? What drew? Where from your picture
^ > v ^ > v
^ v ^ v
^ < v ^ < v
could appear? While I have shown you, inversion in the centre of gap
does not depend on, is the loop single either compensative. If you are
trying to explain our result in this way, please explain it on a
single frame when it is extended from the gap - just what I asked you
to explain in your previous post. ;-)
Finally, I didn't understand, have you lifted the objections of your
first post? ;-)
Happy New Year to you! I wish you great happiness and success in your
research and full agreement and understanding both in your family and
with colleagues.
Sergey
Harry
I got tired from our discussion, but I did not lift my main objections
from my first post.
I like to elaborate on one point that I only hinted at at first and
then I only roughly sketched it. I had the impression, and you did
not comment on it, that you treat a surface integral as if it is a
line integral, with very bad consequences, and I mentioned dimensional
analysis.
According to you, for an experiment in which you have a wire just
inside a rectangular gap, either along the long or the short side: "my
emf has to depend on ratio between the long and short sides of gap. "
I concluded from that - in agreement from what I concluded from your
paper - that then the emf should be proportional to the length of the
wire inside the gap, as the forces of moving charges simply add up.
Then EMF = length * <speed of change of flux> or:
Volt = m * Wb/m^2 /s = Wb/s /m = V*s/s /m = V/m.
That can't be right, and would be detected when for example changing
the scale of designed electromotors.
As I wrote, according to standard theory, Volt = surface * <speed of
change of flux>.
Thus Volt = m^2 * Wb/m^2 /s = Wb/s = V*s/s = V
Best wishes for 2004!
Harald