Magnetic Force generates electricity
gu...@hotmail.com
Randy's evidences were insufficient. I remain believing it's a
magnetic force that generates electricity between a moving a charge
and a perpendicular magnetic field.
Evidence:
1. F= kqq/r^2 doesn't use k^2 but a single k where it is the TWO
electric fields of BOTH charges that interact together.
Likewise F= qvB is a simplification where only one B and not B^2 does
not mean it is not BOTH magnetic fields that interact together.
2. IT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE, that a cross-product is used in the
equation F= qv X B and that the moving charge has CIRCULAR FIELD. It
is indeed a torque reaction similar to a GYROSCOPE, absolutely NO
DIFFERENCE.
I was being Polite and Patient to those that believed otherwise, but
unfortunaltely to no avail.
Polite to the point to being called a FUCKWAD by an idiot novice with
an entire year's eductation on the subject as opposed to my 5 years.
mithros
> Randy's evidences were insufficient. I remain believing it's a
> magnetic force that generates electricity between a moving a charge
> and a perpendicular magnetic field.
is it field or a force, you are inconsisten,
first of all you need to agree with yourself
>
> Evidence:
>
> 1. F= kqq/r^2 doesn't use k^2 but a single k where it is the TWO
> electric fields of BOTH charges that interact together.
>
> Likewise F= qvB is a simplification where only one B and not B^2 does
> not mean it is not BOTH magnetic fields that interact together.
tha B may come from tha other one
>
> 2. IT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE, that a cross-product is used in the
> equation F= qv X B and that the moving charge has CIRCULAR FIELD. It
> is indeed a torque reaction similar to a GYROSCOPE, absolutely NO
> DIFFERENCE.
>
> I was being Polite and Patient to those that believed otherwise, but
> unfortunaltely to no avail.
>
> Polite to the point to being called a FUCKWAD by an idiot novice with
> an entire year's eductation on the subject as opposed to my 5 years.
5 years what?
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Jul 21, 8:50 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Randy's evidences were insufficient. I remain believing it's a
> > magnetic force that generates electricity between a moving a charge
> > and a perpendicular magnetic field.
>
> is it field or a force, you are inconsisten,
>
> first of all you need to agree with yourself
>
You need to read about the electric force and the electric field and
then determine the difference.
>
>
> > Evidence:
>
> > 1. F= kqq/r^2 doesn't use k^2 but a single k where it is the TWO
> > electric fields of BOTH charges that interact together.
>
> > Likewise F= qvB is a simplification where only one B and not B^2 does
> > not mean it is not BOTH magnetic fields that interact together.
>
> tha B may come from tha other one
>
You need to re-read what I just wrote above, F= mg, tha G does not
come from tha other one, it belongs to BOTH.
>
>
> > 2. IT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE, that a cross-product is used in the
> > equation F= qv X B and that the moving charge has CIRCULAR FIELD. It
> > is indeed a torque reaction similar to a GYROSCOPE, absolutely NO
> > DIFFERENCE.
>
> > I was being Polite and Patient to those that believed otherwise, but
> > unfortunaltely to no avail.
>
> > Polite to the point to being called a FUCKWAD by an idiot novice with
> > an entire year's eductation on the subject as opposed to my 5 years.
>
> 5 years what?
Actually his 1 year is most likely 1 semester.
mithros
> On Jul 21, 3:00 am, mithros <u7it...@mobsters.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 8:50 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Randy's evidences were insufficient. I remain believing it's a
> > > magnetic force that generates electricity between a moving a charge
> > > and a perpendicular magnetic field.
>
> > is it field or a force, you are inconsisten,
>
> > first of all you need to agree with yourself
>
> You need to read about the electric force and the electric field and
> then determine the difference.
why should my readings determine anything at all
is this some sort of quantum mechanics?
>
>
>
> > > Evidence:
>
> > > 1. F= kqq/r^2 doesn't use k^2 but a single k where it is the TWO
> > > electric fields of BOTH charges that interact together.
>
> > > Likewise F= qvB is a simplification where only one B and not B^2 does
> > > not mean it is not BOTH magnetic fields that interact together.
>
> > tha B may come from tha other one
>
> You need to re-read what I just wrote above, F= mg, tha G does not
> come from tha other one, it belongs to BOTH.
what G, i cant see any G
and it is not F=mg but W=mg
Eric Gisse
[...]
Hey fake idiot, you are talking to a real idiot.
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> Polite to the point to being called a FUCKWAD by an idiot novice with
> an entire year's eductation on the subject as opposed to my 5 years.
I call you a fuckwad because you are an obstinate piece of shit who
has an exceedingly inflated sense of self-worth. You don't know jack
about shit, and you are loud as hell about it. You constantly babble
about magnetic forces being responsible for electromotive forces, but
you cant be arsed to support your always-asinine statements with
anything other than barely-coherent babble.
You are either lying or are being stupid when you say you have spend 5
years studying electromagnetic theory. You didn't even know about the
Lorentz force law until it was told to you sometime in the past few
weeks, and you _still_ do not know how to evaluate the cross product.
For reference, this is how much time I have spent:
2 semesters of classical electromagnetic theory at 3 credit hours
each, with 14 weeks a semester.
That is 3 classroom hours a week, with one homework set a week that
frequently takes at least 10 hours of time to complete - a
conservative estimate. That is 84 hours of actual instruction, barring
days I slept in or otherwise didn't feel like showing up. There were
13 homework sets in each semester, which contributes another 130 hours/
semester. That makes 340 hours of time dedicated to learning just
_classical electromagnetic theory_ in a chunk of time far less than a
calender year.
In other words, I know what I'm talking about because I have spent a
fair bit of time reading about the subject, being lectured to about
the subject, and doing work on the subject. You, on the other hand,
have done none of those and somehow think reading "elements of
physics" has granted you unlimited command of the subject.
Oh, and since you probably won't shut the fuck up about EMF:
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/3152/griffithsscanrd9.gif
Isn't is so _amusing_ to see Griffiths describe the exact same
misconception that you have? Imagine that.
va...@cox.net
You're an ignorant fuckwad. Key word is ignorant.
Pmb
<gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185000654....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Randy's evidences were insufficient. I remain believing it's a
> magnetic force that generates electricity between a moving a charge
> and a perpendicular magnetic field.
>
> Evidence:
>
> 1. F= kqq/r^2 doesn't use k^2 but a single k where it is the TWO
> electric fields of BOTH charges that interact together.
>
> Likewise F= qvB is a simplification where only one B and not B^2 does
> not mean it is not BOTH magnetic fields that interact together.
>
> 2. IT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE, that a cross-product is used in the
> equation F= qv X B and that the moving charge has CIRCULAR FIELD. It
> is indeed a torque reaction similar to a GYROSCOPE, absolutely NO
> DIFFERENCE.
>
> I was being Polite and Patient to those that believed otherwise, but
> unfortunaltely to no avail.
Thank you for your efforts in being polite and patient. I can appreciate a
person who displays such qualities. Thank you. Please note that I too will
remain polite and patient as well. I'm glad you posted on this topic. Its
one that I've wanted to discuss for some time now. :)
> Polite to the point to being called a FUCKWAD by an idiot novice with
> an entire year's eductation on the subject as opposed to my 5 years.
You do understand that a magnetic field cannot do work on a classical
charged particle, right? How the magnetic force comes into play in a
generator is a bit hard to explain. What I can do is to place the two
American Journal of Physics articles that I have on this subject online so
that you can read them and understand what it is I _believe_ that you're
looking for. I'll set that up now and if that was not what you were
interested in then you can just ignore it.
Best regards
Pete
Pmb
"mithros" <u7i...@mobsters.com> wrote in message
news:1185005839.9...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 21, 9:17 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 21, 3:00 am, mithros <u7it...@mobsters.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jul 21, 8:50 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Randy's evidences were insufficient. I remain believing it's a
>> > > magnetic force that generates electricity between a moving a charge
>> > > and a perpendicular magnetic field.
>>
>> > is it field or a force, you are inconsisten,
>>
>> > first of all you need to agree with yourself
>>
>> You need to read about the electric force and the electric field and
>> then determine the difference.
>
> why should my readings determine anything at all
>
> is this some sort of quantum mechanics?
mithros - I was wondering if you could provide some background on this
conversation for me? The original poster seems to have started a new thread
to continue a discussion. It appears to me that this thread is about whether
magnetic forces can do work. Do understand correctly?
>> > 5 years what?
>>
>> Actually his 1 year is most likely 1 semester.
I'm curious as to what this 5 years is supposed to mean. When I was an
undergrad we had a year of EM (Freshman/sophymore level - Physics 103). That
accounts for one year. Then later on we had the next level of EM which, I
_think_ was one year. That makes a total of 2 years of EM at the undergrad
level. At the graduate level it took one year for the entire EM graduate
sequence. So I have a total of 3 years under my belt as far as _learning_ EM
goes. Then came 17 years of using it. Perhaps he meant he's known EM for 5
years?
Pete
Pmb
Here are links to the papers I mentioned
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/Coombes_1979.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/Mosca_1974.pdf
I hope these will help settle the debate. If not then can you clarify what
this is all about? I cannot glean it from the above comments. Thanks.
Pete
mithros
> <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185000654....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Randy's evidences were insufficient. I remain believing it's a
> > magnetic force that generates electricity between a moving a charge
> > and a perpendicular magnetic field.
>
> > Evidence:
>
> > 1. F= kqq/r^2 doesn't use k^2 but a single k where it is the TWO
> > electric fields of BOTH charges that interact together.
>
> > Likewise F= qvB is a simplification where only one B and not B^2 does
> > not mean it is not BOTH magnetic fields that interact together.
>
> > 2. IT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE, that a cross-product is used in the
> > equation F= qv X B and that the moving charge has CIRCULAR FIELD. It
> > is indeed a torque reaction similar to a GYROSCOPE, absolutely NO
> > DIFFERENCE.
>
> > I was being Polite and Patient to those that believed otherwise, but
> > unfortunaltely to no avail.
>
> > Polite to the point to being called a FUCKWAD by an idiot novice with
> > an entire year's eductation on the subject as opposed to my 5 years.
>
> Here are links to the papers I mentioned
>
>
> I hope these will help settle the debate. If not then can you clarify what
> this is all about? I cannot glean it from the above comments. Thanks.
>
> Pete
maybe a bit a confusion here
tha force they are talking about is a secondary artifact,
not becus tha velocity of the wire throu tha magnetic field,
but becus the curent induced in the wire when in motion
in tha magnetic field
so first of all you need a closed loop conductor, otherwise
you get no current or not much
moving it in a magnetic field it generates a current
the generated current in turn will then generate a magnetic
field, then only now you can talk about your force
without current there will be no force
gu...@hotmail.com
Lying Fuckwad, you said you would stop posting like Randy. He's kept
you well protected which means your Randy's Pet Poodle. Woof.
gu...@hotmail.com
>
I surprised you know what ignorant is. Ignorant is he who reads and
still can't comprehend like you.
F= gm and not F= g1g2
F= kE and not F= E1E2
F= qvB and not F= B1B2
Now go fuck your dog.
gu...@hotmail.com
An ENTIRE journal, I am impressed! Usually people having problems
solving a small solution end up with cob webs of journals.
Here's a few lines FROM AN EXTREMELY PROMINENT SOURCE:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elevol.html
WHICH SAYS THAT EMF IS GENERATED BY THE *************MAGNETIC
FORCE***********
------------------------------
Power = work/time = EMF x I
----------------------------
F= gm and not F= g1g2, F= GMm/r^2 and not F= G^2 Mm/r^2 (nor F= G1G2/
r^2)
F= qE and not F =E1E2, F= kqq/r^2 and not F= k^2 qq/r^2
F= qvB and not F=B1B2
> that you can read them and understand what it is I _believe_ that you're
> looking for. I'll set that up now and if that was not what you were
> interested in then you can just ignore it.
>
> Best regards
>
> Pete- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
gu...@hotmail.com
> On Jul 20, 10:50 pm, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
>
>
>
> > Polite to the point to being called a FUCKWAD by an idiot novice with
> > an entire year's eductation on the subject as opposed to my 5 years.
>
> I call you a fuckwad because you are an obstinate piece of shit who
> has an exceedingly inflated sense of self-worth. You don't know jack
> about shit, and you are loud as hell about it. You constantly babble
> about magnetic forces being responsible for electromotive forces, but
> you cant be arsed to support your always-asinine statements with
> anything other than barely-coherent babble.
>
> You are either lying or are being stupid when you say you have spend 5
> years studying electromagnetic theory. You didn't even know about the
> Lorentz force law until it was told to you sometime in the past few
> weeks, and you _still_ do not know how to evaluate the cross product.
>
> For reference, this is how much time I have spent:
>
> 2 semesters of classical electromagnetic theory at 3 credit hours
> each, with 14 weeks a semester.
>
ah ha ha ha ha ha a ha ha ha ha ah
2 full semesters! impressive.
5 years "plus" hands-on building EVALUATED full scale instruments
based on those principles.
> That is 3 classroom hours a week, with one homework set a week that
> frequently takes at least 10 hours of time to complete - a
> conservative estimate. That is 84 hours of actual instruction, barring
> days I slept in or otherwise didn't feel like showing up. There were
> 13 homework sets in each semester, which contributes another 130 hours/
> semester. That makes 340 hours of time dedicated to learning just
> _classical electromagnetic theory_ in a chunk of time far less than a
> calender year.
>
insufficient
> In other words, I know what I'm talking about because I have spent a
> fair bit of time reading about the subject, being lectured to about
> the subject, and doing work on the subject. You, on the other hand,
> have done none of those and somehow think reading "elements of
> physics" has granted you unlimited command of the subject.
>
> Oh, and since you probably won't shut the fuck up about EMF:
>
What can say about someone who denies the interpretation when he says
that:
"EMF has nothing to do with Magnetic Force".
Might always argue with him about it being sunny outside when in fact
it's raining.
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 21, 4:42 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 10:50 pm, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> > > Polite to the point to being called a FUCKWAD by an idiot novice with
> > > an entire year's eductation on the subject as opposed to my 5 years.
>
> > I call you a fuckwad because you are an obstinate piece of shit who
> > has an exceedingly inflated sense of self-worth. You don't know jack
> > about shit, and you are loud as hell about it. You constantly babble
> > about magnetic forces being responsible for electromotive forces, but
> > you cant be arsed to support your always-asinine statements with
> > anything other than barely-coherent babble.
>
> > You are either lying or are being stupid when you say you have spend 5
> > years studying electromagnetic theory. You didn't even know about the
> > Lorentz force law until it was told to you sometime in the past few
> > weeks, and you _still_ do not know how to evaluate the cross product.
>
> > For reference, this is how much time I have spent:
>
> > 2 semesters of classical electromagnetic theory at 3 credit hours
> > each, with 14 weeks a semester.
>
> ah ha ha ha ha ha a ha ha ha ha ah
>
> 2 full semesters! impressive.
Compared to most people on this newsgroup, it is. Including you.
>
> 5 years "plus" hands-on building EVALUATED full scale instruments
> based on those principles.
5 years? Lets see if you learned anything. I'm willing to bet you are
unable to answer even half of these.
What is the electric field inside a conductor?
What components of the magnetic and electric fields are continuous at
a boundary? Which are discontinuous?
Why do magnetic forces do no work on a charged particle?
What type of path does a charged particle take in the presence of an
electric & magnetic field?
Why is the cross product of two parallel vectors always zero?
Why is the dot product of two perpendicular vectors always zero?
Finally, use Ampere's law to derive the magnetic field around an
infinite wire carrying a current I.
[...]
Paul B. Andersen
Yes, we know.
Of course electromotive force and magnetic force are two different
things, the former isn't even a force but a voltage.
So why the hell do you keep repeating this obvious triviality?
Paul