Letter to readers for the new magnetic force law

[PengKuan Em]

Dear readers,

I have been working on new electromagnetism since year 1997 and written many articles which I sent to several journals of physics for publication. But all my articles were turned down. The main reason for the rejection is that I put the Maxwell’s theory into question. Normal physicists believe that the Maxwell’s theory is flawless and think that any challenge to it is absurd.

However, we have shown in « From Coulomb’s force to magnetic force and experiments that show parallel-to-current magnetic force » that the prediction of the Lorentz force law is wrong, but the new magnetic force law derived in this article gives the correct magnetic force. Since the Lorentz force law is wrong, the energy and mass of high energy particles which are derived with this law are unreliable. So, refusing to solve the violation of the Newton's third law by the Lorentz force law harms the development of physics. Only a revision of electromagnetic theory can unblock the situation.

Revising the Maxwell’s theory is such a radical change of paradigm that normal physicists will laugh at it. But few of them will understand and promote it. Later, in the same way as Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born or Erwin Schrödinger were for Quantum mechanics, when the new theory is finally accepted, the early promoters will become the masters of the discipline.

Revision of Maxwell’s theory is a type of revolution that occurs once in a century. You have the opportunity to be the early promoters of the new theory and become later great masters of physics. For promoting the new theory, you can carry out your own experiment, produce your own development of the theory. You can also spread the idea through your friends or colleagues who think they know all about electromagnetism, just challenge them to solve the paradox of the angular coil1 or those in the list1. These paradoxes are consequent of the inconsistency of the Maxwell’s theory and cannot be solved. Beating them with these paradoxes will make them rethink about the electromagnetism they know and be interested in the new theory.

Because of the aversion to question the Maxwell’s theory of the physical community, I got repeatedly rejected by mainstream journals which hurts me badly. So, I decide to publish my articles only online and count on the wise of you, my readers, to spread the new idea. Breakthroughs in science always fight against old convictions before being accepted, like when geocentrism was replaced by heliocentrism. Once accepted, it will be the happiest event for everyone who is involved. So, let us join our force to revolutionize physics.

Please read this article « From Coulomb’s force to magnetic force and experiments that show parallel-to-current magnetic force » 1 to learn about the new magnetic force law. If you are interested in this project, please contact me at this address pengk...@gmail.com so that we can create a worldwide team which will accelerate its realization.

Kuan Peng
11 December 2023


1. Kuan Peng, 2023, « From Coulomb’s force to magnetic force and experiments that show parallel-to-current magnetic force » https://www.academia.edu/106863205/From_Coulomb_s_force_to_magnetic_force_and_experiments_that_show_parallel_to_current_magnetic_force_letter_
https://pengkuanem.blogspot.com/2023/09/from-coulombs-force-to-magnetic-force.html

[Kuan Peng]

[Jim Pennino]

Kuan Peng <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear readers,
>
> I have been working on new electromagnetism since year 1997 and written
> many articles which I sent to several journals of physics for publication.
> But all my articles were turned down. The main reason for the rejection is
> that I put the Maxwell’s theory into question. Normal physicists believe
> that the Maxwell’s theory is flawless and think that any challenge to it
> is absurd.

Which it is absent a repeatable experiment.

Do you have a repeatable, peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates a
flaw in Maxwell’s theory or are you just yet another crackpot?

[Kuan Peng]

The first experiment is «Continuous rotation of a circular coil
experiment»
https://www.academia.edu/33604205/Continuous_rotation_of_a_circular_coil_experiment

The video of this experiment is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow .
In this video we see a round coil rotating in its plane. Because the coil
is round the driving force must be parallel to the wire, that is, to the
current. This force cannot be Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the
current. A detailed technical explanation is in the paper «Showing
tangential magnetic force by experiment» .

[Jim Pennino]

And the peer reviews of these experiments are at?

[Kuan Peng]

Le 15/12/2023 à 23:55, Jim Pennino a écrit :
> And the peer reviews of these experiments are at?

Not peer reviewed

[Jim Pennino]

And why is that?

[Kuan Peng]

Because this experiment challenges Maxwell which is not allowed by any
journal. So, I have put every technical detail in «Showing tangential
magnetic force by experiment»
https://www.academia.edu/36652163/Showing_tangential_magnetic_force_by_experiment
http://pengkuanem.blogspot.com/2018/05/showing-tangential-magnetic-force-by.html

for anyone who is interested to be able to repeat it.

[Jim Pennino]

Get back to us when someone successfully repeats the experiment.

[Kuan Peng]

Le 16/12/2023 à 17:24, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>
> Get back to us when someone successfully repeats the experiment.

I’m here to inform those people who would be interested to repeat this
simple experiment which will give them a benefit as huge as going to the
moon, because of Maxwell.

[Jim Pennino]

Yeah, right.

What "benefit" might that be?

[Kuan Peng]

To be one of those who definitely contribute to revolutionize
electromagnetism. You know, Quantum mechanics has not been developed by
one person, but by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born or Erwin
Schrödinger and many others.

[Jim Pennino]

Kuan Peng <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 16/12/2023 à 20:02, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>> Kuan Peng <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Le 16/12/2023 à 17:24, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>>>>
>>>> Get back to us when someone successfully repeats the experiment.
>>>
>>> I’m here to inform those people who would be interested to repeat this
>>> simple experiment which will give them a benefit as huge as going to the
>>> moon, because of Maxwell.
>>
>> Yeah, right.
>>
>> What "benefit" might that be?
>
> To be one of those who definitely contribute to revolutionize
> electromagnetism.

This is just a pile of arm waving.

How would it "revolutionize electromagnetism"?

What difference would it make in the real world?

What new technology would it enable?

> You know, Quantum mechanics has not been developed by
> one person, but by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born or Erwin
> Schrödinger and many others.

As can be said about just about everything from quantum mechanics to
windshield wiper blades.

[Kuan Peng]

Le 16/12/2023 à 20:40, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>
> This is just a pile of arm waving.
>
> How would it "revolutionize electromagnetism"?
>
> What difference would it make in the real world?
>
> What new technology would it enable?
>

My experiment shows that a magnetic force that is parallel to the test
current rotates the coil, so parallel-to-current magnetic force exists.
But it is not described by Lorentz force law because Lorentz force is
perpendicular to the test current.

In consequence, parallel-to-current magnetic force cannot be described
with magnetic field because Lorentz force equal the vectorial product of
current I and magnetic field B. Then electromagnetism need a field that is
more then B. This is a radical change in the theory of electromagnetism
and a revolution.

As for practical applications, they will come later as technique evolves.
Even Faraday did not know what would be the applications of electricity.
However, I have in mind an ionic propeller for spacecraft. Ion flow is an
electric current which can be pushed by parallel-to-current magnetic
force.

Also, the magnetic confinement of plasma in Tokamak is designed with
Lorentz force law which does not work with parallel-to-current magnetic
force. But this force really matters for high temperature ions which bite
into the wall. So, parallel-to-current magnetic force will surely improve
the design and the work of nuclear fusion apparatus

[Jim Pennino]

Kuan Peng <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 16/12/2023 à 20:40, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>>
>> This is just a pile of arm waving.
>>
>> How would it "revolutionize electromagnetism"?
>>
>> What difference would it make in the real world?
>>
>> What new technology would it enable?
>>
>
> My experiment shows that a magnetic force that is parallel to the test
> current rotates the coil, so parallel-to-current magnetic force exists.
> But it is not described by Lorentz force law because Lorentz force is
> perpendicular to the test current.
>
> In consequence, parallel-to-current magnetic force cannot be described
> with magnetic field because Lorentz force equal the vectorial product of
> current I and magnetic field B. Then electromagnetism need a field that is
> more then B. This is a radical change in the theory of electromagnetism
> and a revolution.

Yet more arm waving.

>
> As for practical applications, they will come later as technique evolves.
> Even Faraday did not know what would be the applications of electricity.
> However, I have in mind an ionic propeller for spacecraft. Ion flow is an
> electric current which can be pushed by parallel-to-current magnetic
> force.

What you describe is NOT a propeller but a rocket, and ion rockets have
been around for many decades.

So what would change?

>
> Also, the magnetic confinement of plasma in Tokamak is designed with
> Lorentz force law which does not work with parallel-to-current magnetic
> force. But this force really matters for high temperature ions which bite
> into the wall. So, parallel-to-current magnetic force will surely improve
> the design and the work of nuclear fusion apparatus
>

Ions which bite?

[Kuan Peng]

Le 16/12/2023 à 23:03, Jim Pennino a écrit :
> Kuan Peng <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

>> My experiment shows that a magnetic force that is parallel to the test
>> current rotates the coil, so parallel-to-current magnetic force exists.
>> But it is not described by Lorentz force law because Lorentz force is
>> perpendicular to the test current.
>>
>> In consequence, parallel-to-current magnetic force cannot be described
>> with magnetic field because Lorentz force equal the vectorial product of
>> current I and magnetic field B. Then electromagnetism need a field that is
>> more then B. This is a radical change in the theory of electromagnetism
>> and a revolution.
>
> Yet more arm waving.

I do not see what is and what is not arm waving for you. I feel that if
the thing I say is already understood and accepted by you it is not arm
waving, if you do not accept, it is arm waving. Imagine that you read the
theory of relativity, the book does not arm wave, but if it is Einstein
who tells you that time slows down and that you have no idea about
relativity, then he is arm waving.

I said that parallel-to-current magnetic force exists. It is arm waving
for you. For you to accept this idea, I have to teach the whole theory
which cannot be done here. However, parallel-to-current magnetic force is
shown by experiment and is true. I do not know how to explain it without
you thinking I’m arm waving.

>
> What you describe is NOT a propeller but a rocket, and ion rockets have
> been around for many decades.
>
> So what would change?

Yes, ion rockets have been around for many decades. But ion rocket that is
propelled by parallel-to-current magnetic force does not. Is internal
combustion engine not new because steam engine have been around for many
decades? Internal combustion engines use petrol while steam engines use
steam. So, ion rocket that is propelled by parallel-to-current magnetic
force is a new idea, although it is not sure that it will work.

>
>>
>> Also, the magnetic confinement of plasma in Tokamak is designed with
>> Lorentz force law which does not work with parallel-to-current magnetic
>> force. But this force really matters for high temperature ions which bite
>> into the wall. So, parallel-to-current magnetic force will surely improve
>> the design and the work of nuclear fusion apparatus
>>
>
> Ions which bite?

Yes, hot plasma melts spot of the wall of the chamber of a Tokamak.

[Jim Pennino]

Kuan Peng <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 16/12/2023 à 23:03, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>> Kuan Peng <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> My experiment shows that a magnetic force that is parallel to the test
>>> current rotates the coil, so parallel-to-current magnetic force exists.
>>> But it is not described by Lorentz force law because Lorentz force is
>>> perpendicular to the test current.
>>>
>>> In consequence, parallel-to-current magnetic force cannot be described
>>> with magnetic field because Lorentz force equal the vectorial product of
>>> current I and magnetic field B. Then electromagnetism need a field that is
>>> more then B. This is a radical change in the theory of electromagnetism
>>> and a revolution.
>>
>> Yet more arm waving.
>
> I do not see what is and what is not arm waving for you. I feel that if
> the thing I say is already understood and accepted by you it is not arm
> waving, if you do not accept, it is arm waving. Imagine that you read the
> theory of relativity, the book does not arm wave, but if it is Einstein
> who tells you that time slows down and that you have no idea about
> relativity, then he is arm waving.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-waving:

"Hand-waving (with various spellings) is a pejorative label for
attempting to be seen as effective – in word, reasoning, or deed – while
actually doing nothing effective or substantial.[1] It is often applied
to debating techniques that involve fallacies, misdirection and the
glossing over of details.[2] It is also used academically to indicate
unproven claims and skipped steps in proofs (sometimes intentionally, as
in lectures and instructional materials), with some specific meanings in
particular fields, including literary criticism, speculative fiction,
mathematics, logic, science and engineering."

>
> I said that parallel-to-current magnetic force exists. It is arm waving
> for you. For you to accept this idea, I have to teach the whole theory
> which cannot be done here. However, parallel-to-current magnetic force is
> shown by experiment and is true. I do not know how to explain it without
> you thinking I’m arm waving.

See above.

>
>>
>> What you describe is NOT a propeller but a rocket, and ion rockets have
>> been around for many decades.
>>
>> So what would change?
>
> Yes, ion rockets have been around for many decades. But ion rocket that is
> propelled by parallel-to-current magnetic force does not. Is internal
> combustion engine not new because steam engine have been around for many
> decades? Internal combustion engines use petrol while steam engines use
> steam. So, ion rocket that is propelled by parallel-to-current magnetic
> force is a new idea, although it is not sure that it will work.

All the above blather about engines is a perfect example of arm waving.
Nothing you said has anything whatsoever to do with a "new" theory of
electromagnetics.

Nor have you said anything about how your "new theory" ion rocket would
be any different than conventional ion rockets.

>>> Also, the magnetic confinement of plasma in Tokamak is designed with
>>> Lorentz force law which does not work with parallel-to-current magnetic
>>> force. But this force really matters for high temperature ions which bite
>>> into the wall. So, parallel-to-current magnetic force will surely improve
>>> the design and the work of nuclear fusion apparatus
>>>
>>
>> Ions which bite?
>
> Yes, hot plasma melts spot of the wall of the chamber of a Tokamak.

Melt and bite are two entirely different things.

[Kuan Peng]

Let us try to agree on something that is not Hand-waving. Here is my
experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow
The coil in this experiment rotates in its plane. Do you agree with that?

[Jim Pennino]

I don't care.

My bottom line is that if there were "other" hitherto unknown magnetic
forces, they would be visible with iron filings on a piece of paper.

[Kuan Peng]

Le 18/12/2023 à 22:08, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>
> I don't care.
>
> My bottom line is that if there were "other" hitherto unknown magnetic
> forces, they would be visible with iron filings on a piece of paper.

It is OK that you don’t care about my experiment and the
parallel-to-current magnetic force which are the subject of our
discussion. If someone does a thing he does not care, the thing is
worthless for him and he waste his time in doing it. Then have you wasted
your time? For what purpose?

[Jim Pennino]

My bottom line is that if there were "other" magnetic forces, they

[Kuan Peng]

Le 19/12/2023 à 18:07, Jim Pennino a écrit :
> My bottom line is that if there were "other" magnetic forces, they
> would be visible with iron filings on a piece of paper.

Your bottom line has two things: magnetic forces and iron filings. So, for
you iron filings defines magnetic forces, in other words, magnetic forces
are equivalent to iron filings.

Any vectorial quantities have two components: that is parallel to current
and that is perpendicular to current. Iron filings are arranged by Lorentz
force which is perpendicular to current. The component parallel to current
does not act on iron filings, so you voluntarily disregard the parallel
component and you choose to be blind on it.

You could argue that parallel component does not exist. But, is it that
the parallel component really does not exist in the world or your choice
for it not to exist?

[Jim Pennino]

Kuan Peng <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 19/12/2023 à 18:07, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>> My bottom line is that if there were "other" magnetic forces, they
>> would be visible with iron filings on a piece of paper.
>
> Your bottom line has two things: magnetic forces and iron filings. So, for
> you iron filings defines magnetic forces, in other words, magnetic forces
> are equivalent to iron filings.

Utter, childish, nonsense.

>
> Any vectorial quantities have two components: that is parallel to current
> and that is perpendicular to current. Iron filings are arranged by Lorentz
> force which is perpendicular to current. The component parallel to current
> does not act on iron filings, so you voluntarily disregard the parallel
> component and you choose to be blind on it.

Gibberish.

If your component parallel to current does not act on iron filings, then
it will not act on anything, including ions.

> You could argue that parallel component does not exist. But, is it that
> the parallel component really does not exist in the world or your choice
> for it not to exist?

More gibberish.

[Kuan Peng]

You have a disrespectful manner of speaking. You seem like a poorly
educated child who shouts while adult discuss issue logically with
civility and politeness. You will be surely more angry now.

[Jim Pennino]

Kuan Peng <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 21/12/2023 à 00:33, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>> Kuan Peng <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Le 19/12/2023 à 18:07, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>>>> My bottom line is that if there were "other" magnetic forces, they
>>>> would be visible with iron filings on a piece of paper.
>>>
>>> Your bottom line has two things: magnetic forces and iron filings. So, for
>>> you iron filings defines magnetic forces, in other words, magnetic forces
>>> are equivalent to iron filings.
>>
>> Utter, childish, nonsense.
>>
>>>
>>> Any vectorial quantities have two components: that is parallel to current
>>> and that is perpendicular to current. Iron filings are arranged by Lorentz
>>> force which is perpendicular to current. The component parallel to current
>>> does not act on iron filings, so you voluntarily disregard the parallel
>>> component and you choose to be blind on it.
>>
>> Gibberish.
>>
>> If your component parallel to current does not act on iron filings, then
>> it will not act on anything, including ions.
>>
>>> You could argue that parallel component does not exist. But, is it that
>>> the parallel component really does not exist in the world or your choice
>>> for it not to exist?
>>
>> More gibberish.
>
> You have a disrespectful manner of speaking.

Respect is something that is earned.

> You seem like a poorly
> educated child who shouts while adult discuss issue logically with
> civility and politeness. You will be surely more angry now.

You flatter yourself if you think your gibberish makes me angry.

You have not yet given a direct answer to any question put to you.

[Kuan Peng]

Le 21/12/2023 à 03:48, Jim Pennino a écrit :
> Respect is something that is earned.

So, you recognize that you do not respect people who has not earned
respect, that is, you disrespect openly almost everyone, which is exactly
the temper you show.

>
> You flatter yourself if you think your gibberish makes me angry.
>
> You have not yet given a direct answer to any question put to you.

When I asked you: “Here is my experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow
The coil in this experiment rotates in its plane. Do you agree with

that?”

Your answer was: “I don't care”. Do you call this a direct answer?

In fact, you see well that the coil rotates, so you cannot answer
“no”, but you do not want to answer “Yes” because acknowledging
that the coil rotates embarrasses you. So, the “I don't care” is an
escape, which avoid you to answer “Yes”. This escape is an admission
of defeat in this discussion because you did not have the courage to
accept the truth.

The words you used “Utter, childish, nonsense, gibberish” show your
anger, anger of not being able to keep the conversation in your favor. If
the word “gibberish” and “You have not yet given a direct answer to
any question put to you” were your real thought, then you have not
understood anything in this discussion. What do you know in
electromagnetism?

[Jim Pennino]

Kuan Peng <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 21/12/2023 à 03:48, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>> Respect is something that is earned.
>
> So, you recognize that you do not respect people who has not earned
> respect, that is, you disrespect openly almost everyone, which is exactly
> the temper you show.
>>
>> You flatter yourself if you think your gibberish makes me angry.
>>
>> You have not yet given a direct answer to any question put to you.
>
> When I asked you: “Here is my experiment:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow
> The coil in this experiment rotates in its plane. Do you agree with
> that?”
>
> Your answer was: “I don't care”. Do you call this a direct answer?

Yep.

You have not yet given a direct answer to any question put to you.

Here's a new one for you:

According to you, your newly discovered force has no effect on iron
filings so how could it possibly effect anything else?

<snip remaining nonsense>

[Kuan Peng]

Le 21/12/2023 à 16:48, Jim Pennino a écrit :

> Kuan Peng <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Your answer was: “I don't care”. Do you call this a direct answer?
>
> Yep.

Your “Yep” tells that you are cheating. My question was: “Do you
agree with that?” which admits only two possible answer: Yes and No. You
answered “I don't care” which is neither of them. So, you answered
with nonsense. Suppose I ask you: “Are you dead”? You answer: “I
don't care”. This answer is ridiculous. If you give an answer, then you
are not dead. So, we can work out your real answer from the cheating “I
don't care” which is “No, I do not agree”, that is, you think “the
coil does not rotates” which is completely wrong.

From your “Yep” you show that you have a dishonest personality and you
cheat.

>
> According to you, your newly discovered force has no effect on iron
> filings so how could it possibly effect anything else?
>

I told you that the newly discovered force makes the coil rotate. You
shouted back: “Nonsense”. Then no conversation is possible anymore.
You have cut the discussion with your vulgar “nonsense, gibberish”,
which is not contrary to your dishonest personality.

[Jim Pennino]

Kuan Peng <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Le 21/12/2023 à 16:48, Jim Pennino a écrit :
>> Kuan Peng <tita...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Your answer was: “I don't care”. Do you call this a direct answer?
>>
>> Yep.
>
> Your “Yep” tells that you are cheating. My question was: “Do you
> agree with that?” which admits only two possible answer: Yes and No. You
> answered “I don't care” which is neither of them. So, you answered
> with nonsense. Suppose I ask you: “Are you dead”? You answer: “I
> don't care”. This answer is ridiculous. If you give an answer, then you
> are not dead. So, we can work out your real answer from the cheating “I
> don't care” which is “No, I do not agree”, that is, you think “the
> coil does not rotates” which is completely wrong.
>
> From your “Yep” you show that you have a dishonest personality and you
> cheat.

All of this is just paranoid babble on your part.

>
>>
>> According to you, your newly discovered force has no effect on iron
>> filings so how could it possibly effect anything else?
>>
>
> I told you that the newly discovered force makes the coil rotate. You
> shouted back: “Nonsense”. Then no conversation is possible anymore.
> You have cut the discussion with your vulgar “nonsense, gibberish”,
> which is not contrary to your dishonest personality.

Yes, you have said your "newly discovered force" makes a coil rotate,
but you have also said your "newly discovered force" has no effect on
iron filings, which is an impossible contridiction.

Therefore your "experiment" is obviously invalid.

And no, I have no interest in going through your obviously flawed
"experiment" to find your error(s).