Electrostatic Magnetism
rsansbury
The similarities between the magnetic force and the force between
electrostatic dipoles has inspired a century long futile search for
magnetic monopoles. Maybe there is another possibility; that magnetism
itself may be due to electrostatic dipoles inside electrons and atomic
nuclei. New and reinterpreted old experiments supporting this view are
described below.
Charge polarization inside electrons and atomic nuclei has been shown
not to exist after their spin, that is their magnetic aspect, has been
allowed for; see, for example, The Electric Dipole Moment of the Cesium
Atom, a New Upper Limit to the ELectric Dipole Moment, by Victor Weiskopf
et al in the Physical Review Letters 1968 v21p1645. But we can attribute
the magnetic effect of an atomic nucleus normally attributed to its spin
instead to an electrostatic dipole inside the nucleus; Similarly for
electrons. We summarize in the third paragraph how the magnetic forces
between parallel current carrying wires and be attributed to charge
polarization inside atomic nuclei and free electrons transverse to the
wires. Although the existence of such dipoles of varying magnitude does
not require a mechanism, we propose a mechanism that also goes against
accepted theory. That is we regard the nucleus as made up of a positive
core orbited by a much smaller oppositely charged mass such that the net
charge is as observed; similarly for the electron; and elliptization of
the orbit and a displacement of centers of positive and negative charge
produce the dipoles. Therefore the concept of spin is an unnecessary
circumlocution to avoid directly stating the existence of a mass orbiting
a central point in any circle on an imaginary sphere of radius about
10^-15 meters moving as a spinning surface of this size would have to
move at tachyon velocities in excess of the speed of light; but a
convincing argument for speeds increasing to and beyond the speed of
light without mass becoming infinite at that speed is summarized in the
next paragraph. A further advantage of regarding spin as an electrostatic
dipole is that the evidence from the emission spectra of ammonia for
nuclear quadrapoles as part of the nuclear force of N14 on its orbiting
electrons can be more systematically represented That is now, to the
Coulomb potential which is the first of a sum of terms of the Taylor
expansion of the potential of an unknown distribution of charge inside
the nucleus we must add a term which is not part of this expansion,
namely the spin of the nucleus, and then we must skip the second term of
the Taylor expansion and add the fourth term which is the quadrapole
term. But we can also throw out the spin term and define an equivalent
term which is of the form of the dipole or second term of the above
Taylor expansion(see Coles and Good in the Physical Review of 1946.
The premise of an orbital system inside a free electron, a bound
electron, or an atomic nucleus implies superluminal speeds. The apparent
increase in the mass of a beta electrons ejected from radium nuclei at
speeds near the speed of light was first observed by a good vacuum maker,
Walter Kaufmann in 1903 experiments on these beta electrons some of which
could be made with the application of an electrostatic field to have the
trajectory to pass throught a crossed electrostatic and magnetic field
before impinging on a photographic plate. The marks where they impinged
on the photographic emulsion indicated their trajectory; those moving
fastest were least deflected by the electrostatic field but if they were
not too fast they would be more deflected by the magnetic field. Those
that went straight and did not appear to be deflected by the magnetic
field in spite of their great velocity perhaps increased in mass or
perhaps more generally their magnetic responsiveness decreased at an
increasing rate as an elastic limit-the speed of light -was approached.
If the latter interpretation is correct then the proposed orbital system
inside electrons and inside atomic nuclei is possible without resort to
tachyons.
But would such a system be stable and not run down. Yes just as in the
case of Bohr's orbital system for atoms, orbital systems near one another
arrange themselves according to the priciple of least energy so that
oscillations of one orbital system are opposed by a neighborin orbital
system half of the time and half of the time are heleped by the
neighboring orbital system. Picture two clock faces on a wall side by
side; a charged object in the righthand clock goes in an arc from 6 to 9
when a similarly charged object in the left hand clock goes in an arc
from 12 to 3 in both cases due to central forces; Note that these charged
objects are opposing each others motion. But then as the righthand clock
charged object continues from 9 to 12, the lefthand similarly charged
clock object goes from 3 to 6 and they are helping each others motion
giving back the energy they had previously lost; Continuing in this way
we see that there is no net loss of energy. When an orbiting charged
particle moves between a larger and a smaller orbit radiation is not so
cancelled and familiar emission spectra are observed and can be recorded
The force between parallel current carrying wire sements can be
expressed as the force between electrostatic dipoles transverse to the
segments where the magnitude of the dipoles per unit length of wire is
proportional to the currents i and i', to the distance of separation of
the wires,r, and to the ratios of i to i'or i+i':
(r)(i^2)/[(3^1/2)(c)(i')] and (r)(i'^2)/[(3^1/2)(c)(i)] where i=nAev
etc. where c denotes the speed of light, n denotes the density of the
wire, A, the crosss section area, e=1.6 times 10^-19 Coulombs denotes the
charge of a free electron and v the velocity of the electron in the
direction of the current flow. Substituting these values in the formula
for the force between electrostatic dipoles, one obtains Ampere's formula
for the magnetic force between parallel current carrying segments. The
dipole per fre electron and per nucleus (r)(v^2)/cv' and (r)(v'^2)/cv
cannot of course exceed the interatomic distance in the conductor, about
one Angstrom for solids; one of the nuclei and free electrons increase in
size as the dipoles within them increase in size. Another inhibiting
influence is the interference from the parallel current carrying segments
and its transverse dipoles. We propose that the mechanism producing the
dipoles is the effect of the longitudinal emf force driving the electrons
but also acting on a charged particle inside the free electrons orbiting
the central core of the free electrons casusing a transverse
elliptization of the orbit as described in detail below. The same emf
also produces a similar elliptization withing the lattice nuclei of the
conductor. The rapid movement and spacing of the orbital elecgtrons
prevents them from opposing the unidirected emf force. The field of the
transverse dipoles of one wire at the second wire is perpendicular to the
longitudinal emf force driving the free electrons in the second wire and
tends to produce elliptization in the longitudinal direction and so
reduces the transvers dipole in the second wire. The above can be
generalized for any relative orientation of the a pair of wire segments.
One might object to this theory on the grounds that electrostatic
shielding is not effective in shielding against magnetic fields; the
answer is that a large number of similarly oriented small electrostatic
dipoes inside the nuclei and free electrons of a piece of metal produce
entirely different fields than an excess of free electrons on one side of
the piece of metal and a deficiency on the other; this can be shown
mathematically as well as by the experiments cited below.
One might also object that each pairwise force between one wire
segment carrying current i(1) and many other sements would imply
different dipoles associated with the same segment; Now it is true that
a dipole inside one wire segment cannot at the same time be the product
r(1,2)s(1) and also r(1,3)s(1) where s(1)=i(1)/c and the distance
between segments 1 and 2 denoted r(1,2)
is not equal to r(1,3), the distance between segments 1 and 3. But the
actual dipole involved here, r(1)s(1), where r(1) is yet to be determined
is equivalent in its effects to the sum of dipole-dipole forces involving
different dipoles for the same wire segment The mathematical procedure
for determining r(1) etc and the unique dipole r(1)(s(1) etc is as
follows:
The force on the first of three current carrying wire segment due to
the other two wire segments is [ks(1)s(2)r(1,2)^2]/r(1,2)^4
+[ks(1)s(3)r(1,3)^2]/r(1.3)^4 where k denotes a constant of
proportionality and the other terms are as defined above. We set this
expression for the force equal to another expression, in terms of
unknowns to be determined, for the same force, namely
[ks(1)s(2)r(1)r(2)]/r(1,2)^4 + [ks(1)s(3)r(1)r(3)]/r(1,3)^4. Note this
equivalence will only be valid if r(1)r(2)=r(1,2)^2 and
r(1)r(3)=r(1,3)^2; that is if r(1)=r(1,2)^2/r(2) and
r(2)=[r(1,3)^2/r(1,2)^2]r(3). The force on the second wire segment due to
the first and third gives a similar equation which will hold under
similar conditions. Now we have enough to solve
r(2)^2=[(r(1,3)^2)/(r(1,2)^2)][r(2,3)^2] and r(1)=[r(1,2)^2]/r(2).
Proceeding in this way we obtain r(3) and thus unique dipoles for each
segment. The procedure generalizes for many however oriented current
segments even if the currents are of different magnitudes.
In 1984 I was invited to MIT to repeat some experiments carried out
several years before at the Polytechnic University of New York. The
experiments involved measurements of small attractive forces about
10^(-7to-5)Newtons, between uncharged current carrying wires(900Amps to
25Amps) and a charged cm^2 foil(2kV) and two oppositely charged foils
separated by a thi, eg 1mm dielectric(.42kV). The attraction appeared to
increase with increasing currents contrary to the accpeted theory that
the magnetic force of current carrying wires was independent of the
electrostatic force of charged conductors(Note that induced oppositely
directed currents cause repulsion). The first experiment was published in
the Rev Sci. Instr.(3/85), a brief discussion appeared in the Electrical
Engineering TImes(12/28/87). A related patent was accepted by the US
patent office(4,355,195) and a paper purporting to be a duplication of
one of the first experiments using completely different apparatus and
orders of magnitude of currents presented results which did not confirm
my original findings(RSI, kD.F.Bartlett 10/90). And why should it.
Because it was not as advertised an honest duplication of the original
experiment cited.Pro and Con discussion on the same level as this is
written is welcome.
kenneth paul collins
rsansbury wrote:
>
> The similarities between the magnetic force and the force between
> electrostatic dipoles has inspired a century long futile search for
> magnetic monopoles. Maybe there is another possibility; that magnetism
> itself may be due to electrostatic dipoles inside electrons and atomic
> nuclei.
[big snip]
what's referred to as "magnetism" is a flowing of a Physically-Reale aether,
and which flowing is augmented in the "normal" direction of the flow of
energy from relatively-ordered "states" to less-ordered states that is
what's described by 2nd Thermo (WDB2T)...
...absent such Physically-Real flow, there exists none of that which is
referred to as "magnetism"...
...as they have been conceived, no "magnetic monopoles" will ever be
discovered... none exist... but it will come to be acknowledged that what
have been referred to as "atoms" donstitute something resembling the
hypothetical form of "magnetic monopoles"... what have been referred to as
"atoms" are Spherical Standing Waves (SSWs) in harmonic interaction with the
Universal Energy Supply (UES)... the Physically-Real aether... what
have been referred to as "atoms" are actually SSW<->UES harmonics... and low
and behold, the SSW<->UES harmonics just vary between two "monopole"-like
"states"... one "compression", the other "expansion"... the alternation between
these two "states" being maintained by the propensity of the UES to "seek" the
WDB2T "norm"... K. P. Collins
_____________________________________________________
People hate because they fear, and they fear because
they do not understand, and they do not understand
because hating is less work than understanding.
rsansbury
kenneth paul collins <KPCo...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>what's referred to as "magnetism" is a flowing of a Physically-Reale >...absent such Physically-Real flow, there exists none of that which is
Am at a loss for words. .