Induction: Looking toward a new "model".
Benj
Induction in a Usenet thread, I received numerous "answers" pointing
to Maxwell's equations as the "model" and various establishment
"dogma" as the "explanation" of induction. The arguments that ensued
induced me to review the status and theory of Faraday Induction in the
light of some new investigations and a new look at Maxwell's equations
notably those musings by Oleg Jefimenko.
-------------------
First the following are the "accepted" rules and definitions in this
regard. Faraday Induction means the creation of induced currents
about a given current element. The magnitude and sign of the induced
currents depend upon the first derivative of the source current. The
direction of the induced currents is parallel to the source current.
It is also observed that a moving magnet or a wire moving in a
magnetic field also induces a current. The equation that describes
this is known as the Lorentz force equation. Therefore Faraday
Induction is believed to be related to TWO descriptions (See Feynman
quote in Wikipedia Induction article).
A second form of induction known as "Maxwellian Induction" where a
changing electric field creates a magnetic field is also believed to
exist. This is related to the fabled "displacement current".
These two forms of induction are believed to be the result of the
ability of a changing magnetic field to create an electric field and
of a changing electric field to create a Magnetic field. Furthermore
it is widely accepted that the E field of induction is basically the
same E field as in electrostatic attraction or Coulomb's law.
Therefore equations can be derived by freely substituting these E
fields at will.
This leads to the calculation of induction through the use of "Flux
linkages". The number of "flux lines" that pass through a given
surface and the rate of change of them therefore determines the
induced emf. In modern form we'd calculate the surface integral of
the changing magnetic field over the loop in which the induction is
induced.
Hence it is widely believed that this "model" explains Induction
effects.
------------------
Unfortunately nearly all of the above ideas are utterly wrong.
Virtually ALL of the established explanations of Induction actually
make no sense whatever. Sorting it all out takes some work. Here are
the facts.
1. By reason of causality a changing electric field cannot create a
Magnetic field and a changing magnetic field cannot create an electric
field. In truth BOTH are created by a source current and once created
no longer interact with each other.
2. In spite of the nifty appearance of iron filings in a magnetic
field, "flux lines" is a bogus concept with no quantitative value.
Furthermore, 1 above proves that the use of the integral of a magnetic
field (Faraday's law) over a surface to find induced emf, while a
method that usually produces correct answers has no basis in the
physics of induction. The magnetic field cannot and does not "cause"
the E field of induction.
3. Maxwell induction and the displacement current have never been
demonstrated to exist and therefore have no experimental basis in
reality. Therefore we are reduced to having just Faraday Induction as
the ONLY form of induction.
4. Faraday induction exists only in non-moving systems and the Lorentz
force equation describes the case where things are in relative motion.
However it can be shown that the Lorentz forces are really just a case
of a transformation of reference frames from stationary to moving in
Faraday induction. It is the moving currents (charges) in moving
systems that create the induction fields. (See Jefimenko) Therefore,
non-moving Faraday induction is sufficient to describe ALL induction!
The Lorentz forces like "flux linkages" are merely mathematics that
give correct answers but have no REAL basis in the physics of the
situation.
5. Finally we must observe that the E field induced by changing
currents in Faraday Induction is NOT the same E field found in
electrostatic Coulomb attraction. It has different properties and
force directions. To blindly exchange these two E fields in equations
is clearly nonsense. A few researchers have made this point for a long
time.
6. We might also mention that the Vector Magnetic Potential, A, is
also non-causal to the induced emf of induction. This means that the
changing current to induced current effects of induction are operating
not through the intermediary of B or A and hence represent a current
to current mechanism that is NOT "explained".
The bottom line of all this is that the 'standard' Maxwellian
explanations and "model" of electromagnetic induction is completely in
error and any new "model" that might provide a "point of view" for the
current to current action of Faraday induction has not been
forthcoming. This therefore appears to be the current
"understanding" (or more exactly lack of it) of Electromagnetic
Induction and the physics that might lie behind it.
Let me thank all who responded to my recent thread. Even those who
responded with the wrong answers contributed because even arguing the
wrong things still causes one to rethink the whole issue to try to
prove what is "right" and what is "wrong". Hence the argument creates
the progress, while the various points made within it are merely
stepping stones to shaking out a better viewpoint! Thanks all.
Uncle Al
>
> Having raised certain questions about a "model" for Electromagnetic
> Induction in a Usenet thread, I received numerous "answers" pointing
> to Maxwell's equations as the "model" and various establishment
> "dogma" as the "explanation" of induction. The arguments that ensued
> induced me to review the status and theory of Faraday Induction in the
> light of some new investigations and a new look at Maxwell's equations
> notably those musings by Oleg Jefimenko.
1) Maxwell's Equations.
2) First World power grids: generation, dsitribution, use.
3) "Metod kraevykh voln v fizicheskoi teorii difraktsii" by Pyotr
Ufimtsev then stealth.
4) Maxwell's equations are covariant right out of the box.
> Unfortunately nearly all of the above ideas are utterly wrong.
> Virtually ALL of the established explanations of Induction actually
> make no sense whatever.
[snip rest of crap]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Szczepan Bialek
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote
news:7d525150-5694-4ea1...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> 5. Finally we must observe that the E field induced by changing
> currents in Faraday Induction is NOT the same E field found in
> electrostatic Coulomb attraction. It has different properties and
> force directions.
Could you give some details?
>To blindly exchange these two E fields in equations
> is clearly nonsense. A few researchers have made this point for a long
> time.
Do you remember the names?
S*
>
hhc...@yahoo.com
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrotenews:7d525150-5694-4ea1...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe we should cut the OP a break, because (no slight intended) but
it seems clear that he doesn't have a sufficient math background to
grasp Faradays law of induction or Maxwell's Equations, and
consequently doesn't understand the physics that they describe.
This seems reinforced by his constant citation to current carrying
conductors rather than tiime varying E fields or B fields.
Still, the enigma to me is this. Both of the cited articles contain
not only the mathematical description, but a text explanation
sufficiently clear enough to be grasped by a middle school level
student, so why doesn't he grasp the basic concept, or is it that he
doesn't want to? Is he perhaps a troll, because the quality of his
writing suggests that he isn't retarded and only pretending to be.
This is more or less a common signature of a troll.
I've had quite enough "Benj Bullcrap". Now its your call.
Harry C.
Eric Gisse
[snip]
What electrodynamics texts have you studied in an attempt to cure your
confusion?
Sue...
The covers on his books are unflavoured
so you wouldn't enjoy them. :o)
Sue...
hhc...@yahoo.com
Hell Eric, I seriously doubt that Benj has ever mastered a basic text
at the Physics 101 level.
Harry C.
hhc...@yahoo.com
Sue, I know this is stupid, but I don't even own a textbook with an
"illustrated" cover, unless you include the multicolor on Halliday and
Resnick. On the other hand my wife teaches "special needs" kids, and
the covers of the books that she employs are pretty colorful and
lavish with meaningless illustrations supposed to convey something.
Take that for whatever it is worth.
Harry C.
Sue...
> Having raised certain questions about a "model" for Electromagnetic
> Induction in a Usenet thread, I received numerous "answers" pointing
> to Maxwell's equations as the "model" and various establishment
> "dogma" as the "explanation" of induction.
Run a "brute force" simulation and learn the truth.
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
Molecular-dynamics approach to itinerant
magnetism with complex magnetic structures
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998PhRvB..57.8354K
Sue...
Eric Gisse
Just because you are distracted by "ooh shiny" doesn't mean I am.
Benj
> 1) Maxwell's Equations.
They are clearly wrong. Provide proof of displacement current and
Maxwell induction please!
> 2) First World power grids: generation, dsitribution, use.
All Developed by Tesla without use of Maxwell's equations. He did it
wiith "models" and a new "point of view". His professor "proved" to
him that it was imposable to build an electric motor that did not have
a commutator. Obviously that professor was as big an idiot as the
ones pretending to be knowledgable who are posting here. Plus ca
change.
> 3) "Metod kraevykh voln v fizicheskoi teorii difraktsii" by Pyotr
> Ufimtsev then stealth.
Sorry I use my brain to think not to store useless databases like
languages I don't speak.
> 4) Maxwell's equations are covariant right out of the box.
Which means what? Are the form in which Maxwell's equations are
usually written causal? Sorry dumbass, they are not! They only show
that the right side of the equations EQUALS the left side. The right
side does NOT "cause" the left side or vice versa.
You know "Unc." unless you start to learn to think, you are never
going to amount to shit in science. A Handbook is filled with huge
amounts of data just like your photographic memory, and similarly
nobody ever saw a handbook develop any new theories on its own without
help.
You think simply repeating pat bumper sticker slogans over and over is
some kind of argument or debate? Just how ignorant are you?
<snip rest of "Unc. Al's" unthinking nonsense.>
Oh yeah.
Idiot!
Benj
Of course I do. Start with P.W. Bridgeman "the logic of modern
physics" 1928, then move on to "New horizons in Electric Magnetic and
Gravitational Field Theory" by W. J. Hooper, and finally get the
icing on the mathematical cake from Oleg Jefimenko "Causality,
Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation".
But are you sure you'd really like to understand what I'm talking
about? Most of the replies here are by people whose idea of "research"
is to dig out their freshman class notes and look up and repeat what
the professor told them was "true". If faith isn't spoon-fed to them
they can't deal with it. You need to remember that although the
persons referenced above are (were) full professors, it seems they
"went bad" after they got tenure, becoming insane "cranks" who started
publishing ideas that did not have the stamp of approval from
establishment faith-based physics. So, like me, they are Ignorant,
uneducated, and insane, and it would be MUCH easier for you to join
the braying crowd here and simply note that there is nothing that this
bunch of cranks could possibly say that might change your already made-
up mind. No doubt they are the most "debunked" men in science. And
you certainly don't need to read any of their books to know that they
are full of shit. Just ask Uncle Al. He remembers EVERYTHING! Do you
want your career to go down the drain with theirs? Best you keep the
faith and stick to "approved" explanations for things. Wikipedia is
always a good authority with which to start.
Benj
the troll
Benj
> I've had quite enough "Benj Bullcrap". Now its your call.
>
> Harry C.
Then why don't you simply shut your arrogant pie hole and quit reading
this thread?
Do I detect just a tiny bit of doubt that just maybe there is
something wrong with the emperor's new clothes? Shame on you! True
believers never have ANY doubts! Please go repeat Maxwell's equations
100 times as penance!
Moron. Oh wait! I'm sorry, Bigoted arrogant moron.
Benj
> Run a "brute force" simulation and learn the truth.http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
Shame on you Sue. You seemed at first to be smarter than the rest
here. Lessee, Simulations with delta functions, imaginary force
numbers and discrete Fourier transforms in a WINE chip. Boy, that
sure sounds like a description of "reality" to me!
Moron.
So please. Can give me the exact coordinates of the molecular
particles in the magnet and wire I'm using to produce induction? Maybe
then I can use your "math" to get an answer and I'll believe that
your referenced piece is of any significance to this discussion. You
are no better than Al, with bumper sticker slogans to replace real
debate. I take it you are working hard for Obama in the coming
campaign. Garbage in = Garbage out.
My guess is that you have no idea what a WINE chip is or how to build
one. And that means you haven't a clue as to the problems with making
discrete Fourier transforms fit reality. (We won't even talk about
delta functions and reality)
And here I though you might be the one here who could get by without a
slap from the cluefish. Obviously I was mistaken.
Idiot.
You do understand that USENET is a world-wide public forum, right?
What is your purpose in making yourself look like moron for all to
see? I really don't understand this urge in apparently reasonably
intelligent persons to make one's self appear as an drooling idiot in
public.
Eric Gisse
I put forth the same question I did the other day - what was the last
electrodynamics textbook you studied?
Sue...
> On Aug 8, 8:43 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Run a "brute force" simulation and learn the truth.
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm
>
> Shame on you Sue. You seemed at first to be smarter than the rest
> here. Lessee, Simulations with delta functions, imaginary force
> numbers and discrete Fourier transforms in a WINE chip. Boy, that
> sure sounds like a description of "reality" to me!
What things SOUND like to YOU is of no concern to
the advancement of science. The same web site
has numerous examples where the simulation
achieves a high correlation with real problems
in molecular dynamics and astrophysics.
>
> Moron.
<plonk pending>
>
> So please. Can give me the exact coordinates of the molecular
> particles in the magnet and wire I'm using to produce induction?
Yes. Those are intermediate variables in the Ewald method.
> Maybe
> then I can use your "math" to get an answer and I'll believe that
> your referenced piece is of any significance to this discussion. You
> are no better than Al, with bumper sticker slogans to replace real
> debate. I take it you are working hard for Obama in the coming
> campaign. Garbage in = Garbage out.
>
International courtesy prohibits my involvement in such
affairs but he seems a lot smarter than the last person
the Americans hired for the job. But then so is the
village idiot.
> My guess is that you have no idea what a WINE chip is or how to build
> one. And that means you haven't a clue as to the problems with making
> discrete Fourier transforms fit reality. (We won't even talk about
> delta functions and reality)
>
> And here I though you might be the one here who could get by without a
> slap from the cluefish. Obviously I was mistaken.
>
> Idiot.
<plonk>
Sue...
Benj
> > Moron. Oh wait! I'm sorry, Bigoted arrogant moron.
> I put forth the same question I did the other day - what was the last
> electrodynamics textbook you studied?
Eric, you know you can buy a course in reading comprehension that will
greatly improve your skills in that department. I've been listing
electrodynamic references, you "debunkers" have been listing nothing
but baseless charges and accusations that border on libel.
What are we doing here? Having a contest in who has the most
impressive library? OK. Lets make it real then. What was the last
electrodynamics textbook you PURCHASED (your own money is a
requirement here) and when?
Here's a hint Eric: We are not having a contest here about who has the
most abstruse books, nor who has taken the most advanced courses, or
who has the highest degrees or employment titles. We are having a
debate about IDEAS. If you and the other morons would like to join the
debate then you'll actually have to get down and dirty and start
discussing the things that are RELEVANT to those ideas. I'm sorry,
but "proof by assertion" only shows the person to be egotistical and
arrogant. "Proof by reputation" is only evidence that you stopped
doing any real work years ago, and an ad hominem attack, only
demonstrates that clearly you have nothing of value to add to the
subject in question.
I put the same question to you I put to Sue. Do you really enjoy
making yourself look like a fool in a public forum?
Benj
> On Aug 9, 12:47 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > Shame on you Sue. You seemed at first to be smarter than the rest
> > here. Lessee, Simulations with delta functions, imaginary force
> > numbers and discrete Fourier transforms in a WINE chip. Boy, that
> > sure sounds like a description of "reality" to me!
>
> What things SOUND like to YOU is of no concern to
> the advancement of science. The same web site
> has numerous examples where the simulation
> achieves a high correlation with real problems
> in molecular dynamics and astrophysics.
The question dearie is not if mathematics *approximates* reality but
rather if mathematics IS reality. Please tell me again where one
finds those Dirac Delta functions in nature? Point Proven.
> > So please. Can give me the exact coordinates of the molecular
> > particles in the magnet and wire I'm using to produce induction?
>
> Yes. Those are intermediate variables in the Ewald method.
Yes Sue, those ARE the "intermediate values" in the Ewald method. That
is obvious. Which is exactly why I asked you to PROVIDE them not just
tell me the obvious. I suppose you thought I'd be snowed by your
little reference and have to go back to my Burger King mop once I
realized how much your brilliant brain could comprehend? You KNOW you
can't provide the coordinates I asked for, which means that your so-
called "ultimate proof" is nothing of the sort. It's a very limited
mathematical numerical approximation at best. The fact that it's the
"fastest computer in the world" means nothing in this discussion.
> International courtesy prohibits my involvement in such
> affairs but he seems a lot smarter than the last person
> the Americans hired for the job. But then so is the
> village idiot.
Well I can't much disagree with your assessment of Dubya, but I am
please to see I made a correct assessment of "left-leaning".
> > My guess is that you have no idea what a WINE chip is or how to build
> > one. And that means you haven't a clue as to the problems with making
> > discrete Fourier transforms fit reality. (We won't even talk about
> > delta functions and reality)
> <plonk>
I take it from your response that my estimate of your technical level
of expertise was spot-on.
Szczepan Bialek
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote
news:573c8228-5614-47b4...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 8, 1:20 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
> "Benj" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
> wrotenews:7d525150-5694-4ea1...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> 5. Finally we must observe that the E field induced by changing
> > currents in Faraday Induction is NOT the same E field found in
> > electrostatic Coulomb attraction. It has different properties and
> > force directions.
>
> Could you give some details?
>
> >To blindly exchange these two E fields in equations
> > is clearly nonsense. A few researchers have made this point for a long
> > time.
>
> Do you remember the names?
>Of course I do. Start with P.W. Bridgeman "the logic of modern
physics" 1928, then move on to "New horizons in Electric Magnetic and
Gravitational Field Theory" by W. J. Hooper, and finally get the
icing on the mathematical cake from Oleg Jefimenko "Causality,
Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation".
Would be better if you give details to "It has different properties and
force directions."
>But are you sure you'd really like to understand what I'm talking
about?
You need a new model. Many need because that made by Faraday, Ampere, Gauss,
Weber, Maxwell, Hertz, Jefimienko are not perfect.
It is time to come back to Aepinus (gravity and electrostatic are the same)
and Ampere (magnetism is an ilusion).
I see one model for all actions. Why you need the two different electric
actions?
S*
Terry L Hewett Sr
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:7d525150-5694-4ea1...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Indeed the current model is slightly askew. I can offer the new model.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringdrawingincomplete.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringofmagnetswithspacers.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!centipedalfieldring.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!multipolearrangement.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/prototypes.html
Mathematics is mearly the detailed way of communicating an event or series
of events. In the capacity to predict a spacific outcome without a physical
representation it is virtually useless.
Benj
wrote:
> Indeed the current model is slightly askew. I can offer the new model.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringdrawingincomplete.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringofmagnetswithspacers.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!centipedalfieldring.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!multipolearrangement.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/prototypes.html
Hey, I love that Centipedal Field ring! I'm getting ready to build
one of these myself but for a different purpose! As I recall your
idea was to use this field as a kind of "gear" or something for a
motor? Cool photo!
> Mathematics is mearly the detailed way of communicating an event or series
> of events. In the capacity to predict a spacific outcome without a physical
> representation it is virtually useless.
Well, maybe not useless. Just useless for practical understanding.
It's still mathematics and it still stands on it's own as mathematics.
It's not that math is not an interesting and enlightening thing to
study, it's just that one needs to be aware that it is man-invented
systems and deep connections to "reality" have not been demonstrated
for it. But on the other hand people have recognized enough of an
analogy between maths and physical phenomena, that it does at times
become important in the mensuration of phenomena including useful
predictions of what physical systems might do before they are actually
built. The problems arise when people get too comfy with this and
start to look at the various philosophical systems of math as somehow
closer to ultimate reality than physical observations of reality.
Experiment is considered to be the "error" and math is taken to give
the "correct" answers. Needless to say that is upside down.
Benj
> You need a new model. Many need because that made by Faraday, Ampere, Gauss,
> Weber, Maxwell, Hertz, Jefimienko are not perfect.
I agree. Although it seems that Maxwell and Jefimenko have done the
most THINKING about things. Nevertheless there are problems. With
Maxwell it's the displacement thing, and I'm convinced that Jefimenko
somehow has his model backwards ( or you might say "reversed")
although I believe it is essentially correct in many ways. So yes,
while I've been presenting here what these gentlemen have said, my
personal view is that they are not yet perfect.
> It is time to come back to Aepinus (gravity and electrostatic are the same)
> and Ampere (magnetism is an ilusion).
This is a long-standing idea among many especially the "anti-gravity"
crowd. I do not agree with it. But I do agree that to understand the
nature of both gravity and electrostatic does require the addition of
a fourth or more dimension. Of course Jefimenko agrees with Ampere
that magnetism is an illusion, (non-causal) but this is where I
believe he is reversed. I believe magnetism to be the fundamental
phenomenon and not the current-current action at a distance of
induction that he promotes. .
> I see one model for all actions. Why you need the two different electric
> actions?
Because I see two different phenomena arising out of the properties of
the aether. So in a sense I'm talking about a SINGLE model which is an
aether model, but electrostatic forces and inductive forces are NOT
produced by the same aetheric phenomena IMHO. Two actions, two names.
That they both have been named 'electric fields" in the past has been
unfortunate because it created the temptation to mix them up
mathematically and substitute them around where they shouldn't have
been. That of course led to error. Even Jefimenko seems to fall into
this trap at times.
Szczepan Bialek
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote
news:005c72d4-13f2-4ea8...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> It is time to come back to Aepinus (gravity and electrostatic are the
>> same)
> and Ampere (magnetism is an ilusion).
>This is a long-standing idea among many especially the "anti-gravity"
crowd. I do not agree with it.
Many people want to write his own theory. It is like discusssion. But it is
nothing wrong to continue the old ones.
Now we know much more about ether waves. We are able to generate full
spectrum, from radio to X-rays. Here should be find all information about
eter.
> But I do agree that to understand the
nature of both gravity and electrostatic does require the addition of
a fourth or more dimension. Of course Jefimenko agrees with Ampere
that magnetism is an illusion, (non-causal) but this is where I
believe he is reversed. I believe magnetism to be the fundamental
phenomenon and not the current-current action at a distance of
induction that he promotes.
It is a next new theory. Ampere made the artifical magnet (selenoid) and we
know that no magnetic monopoles.
>> I see one model for all actions. Why you need the two different electric
> actions?
>Because I see two different phenomena arising out of the properties of
the aether. So in a sense I'm talking about a SINGLE model which is an
aether model, but electrostatic forces and inductive forces are NOT
produced by the same aetheric phenomena IMHO.
Must be the same. One is static and the other time dependent.
> Two actions, two names.
That they both have been named 'electric fields" in the past has been
unfortunate because it created the temptation to mix them up
mathematically and substitute them around where they shouldn't have
been. That of course led to error. Even Jefimenko seems to fall into
this trap at times.
Unification is the only way. Not each attempt must be succesfull.
S*
boB
wrote:
So when can we expect to see you win the Nobel prize ?
boB
Benj
> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 21:47:56 -0700 (PDT), Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
> wrote:
> >Moron.
> So when can we expect to see you win the Nobel prize ?
> boB
Well, I'll tell ya, boB, it ought to be pretty soon!
I mean if a mere politician like Algore can win an Oscar, an Emmy AND
the Nobel prize for nothing but scientific prevarications, faked data,
and political lies, I'd say that these "honors" represent recognition
so slight that even *I* can be handed one if I just start promoting
the "correct" political position...
Terry L Hewett Sr
> Indeed the current model is slightly askew. I can offer the new model.
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringdrawingincomplete.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!ringofmagnetswithspacers.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!centipedalfieldring.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/images/!multipolearrangement.jpg
http://terrylhewettsr.rackhost.net/prototypes.html
-Hey, I love that Centipedal Field ring! I'm getting ready to build
-one of these myself but for a different purpose!
I'm curious as to what the purpose is. To date i have only found one
mechanism remotely close to it and the ones building and prototyping it are
doing such for the anti gravity effect. www.ganid.com However their
mechanism is plauged with friction and has too few fields to interract with.
However they will reach the same limitations as any common mechanism given
the level of friction and the following. The drive system of their mechanism
is pulsed. Their mechanism is incapable of inducing energy in it's current
design.
-As I recall your
-idea was to use this field as a kind of "gear" or something for a
-motor? Cool photo!
The field arrangement of my mechanism Superconducting Rotory Toroidal
Transformer,
SRTT for short is actually the toroid armature. The toroid armature is the
only moving part of the SRTT. The centipedal drive really is a simple
interaction between coil and arranged permanent magnetic fields. the toroid
armatures field arrangement is a ideal arrangement for driving multiple flux
fields through induction coils cyclic.
> Mathematics is mearly the detailed way of communicating an event or series
> of events. In the capacity to predict a spacific outcome without a
> physical
> representation it is virtually useless.
-Well, maybe not useless. Just useless for practical understanding.
-It's still mathematics and it still stands on it's own as mathematics.
-It's not that math is not an interesting and enlightening thing to
-study, it's just that one needs to be aware that it is man-invented
-systems and deep connections to "reality" have not been demonstrated
-for it. But on the other hand people have recognized enough of an
-analogy between maths and physical phenomena, that it does at times
-become important in the mensuration of phenomena including useful
-predictions of what physical systems might do before they are actually
-built. The problems arise when people get too comfy with this and
-start to look at the various philosophical systems of math as somehow
-closer to ultimate reality than physical observations of reality.
-Experiment is considered to be the "error" and math is taken to give
-the "correct" answers. Needless to say that is upside down.
All the formulation in the world could never stumble across this. the main
problems are that physicists think singular or basic pairs and believe
everything is finite. The toroid armatures fields of the SRTT are in essence
duplicating the electron in a orbital path in a multiple arrangement with a
predetermined and controled path that does not allow entropy.
In short it is a closed system of transformations. The SRTT is the first and
only closed system to grace mankind with it's presence. however it may never
be realized unless it has some serious concideration by the scientific
community. I understand my methods of introduction are crude in the sense
that I cannot provide the formulation to back my claims.
however this doesnt take from the mechanics involved in this mechanism.
Mankind does not tell nature what to do. nature defines what mankind can do.
In reality all our vast knowledge is but a fraction of what is to be known
of nature.
John C. Polasek
wrote:
>On Aug 8, 1:20 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" <sz.bia...@wp.pl> wrote:
Let's be clear on this: if you are spouting from Gaussian E&M (which
it appears pretty clear that you are) then you are too dull to
apprehend that nothing of value exists in that gaussian "discipline"
except a well-defined catechism of tautologies. It is an exercise in
mathematics, not physics.
Since you are evidently too naive to recognize that there is a
difference between SI and gaussian, else you would have made the
declaration, I ask you to write the two constitutive equations linking
B and H and E and D which will enable us to classify your
denomination.
If you write D = E, then I invite you to include my latest finding:
D = E = F*.
*Patent pending
BTW, displacement current is not "fabled". It's essential.
John Polasek
Benj
> Let's be clear on this: if you are spouting from Gaussian E&M (which
> it appears pretty clear that you are) then you are too dull to
> apprehend that nothing of value exists in that gaussian "discipline"
> except a well-defined catechism of tautologies. It is an exercise in
> mathematics, not physics.
I think I agree with this. In fact, I probably agree with it for both
Gaussian and SI units.
> BTW, displacement current is not "fabled". It's essential.
John, it's BOTH "fabled" and "essential".
Think about it.
Eric Gisse
> On Aug 9, 1:29 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Moron. Oh wait! I'm sorry, Bigoted arrogant moron.
> > I put forth the same question I did the other day - what was the last
> > electrodynamics textbook you studied?
>
> Eric, you know you can buy a course in reading comprehension that will
> greatly improve your skills in that department. I've been listing
> electrodynamic references, you "debunkers" have been listing
Not the question I asked.
What was the last electrodynamics textbook you STUDIED? Having it does
not count - I have a textbook on quantum field theory, doesn't mean I
have studied it or understood it.
[snip remainder of whining]
John C. Polasek
wrote:
>On Aug 12, 1:27 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
Well, you're a good sport. I remember taking graduate E&M and the
matter of SI vs gaussian was never discussed. I think we used Smythe,
a gaussian treatment, and I was only sure of one thing: 1 statvolt
seemed to be equal to 300 volts. Now I know it's not even that. What's
left when you throw away the coulomb?
In any case the professor often just copied his own notes onto the
board, which he had copied from his professor's blackboard, etc.
Heritage confers authenticity (?).
John Polasek
Benj
> On Aug 9, 7:25 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 1:29 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Moron. Oh wait! I'm sorry, Bigoted arrogant moron.
> > > I put forth the same question I did the other day - what was the last
> > > electrodynamics textbook you studied?
>
> > Eric, you know you can buy a course in reading comprehension that will
> > greatly improve your skills in that department. I've been listing
>
> Not the question I asked.
>
> What was the last electrodynamics textbook you STUDIED? Having it does
> not count -
What was the last electrodynamics textbook you studied and WHEN? Who
placed you at the head of the class demanding to know what textbooks
people are studying. God, you are arrogant! In case you didn't
notice, ideas stand and fall on their own merit. If you want to argue
"correctness through authority" I've got a set of Maxwell's treatises
here. That should be enough "authority" for any of you "debunkers"!
But the answer to your Question, which as I've indicated, has already
been answered more than once, is Jefimenko. [I digest a couple of
pages each day between "floor mops" at my Burger King job] What part
of it would you like me to explain to you? Did you notice that in
this forum you can't force people to pretend to worship you by
threatening to keep them from graduating?
And you didn't bother to respond to my question did you? What was the
last electromagnetic textbook you purchased with your own money and
what year was that? Well? Note that the text above (along with many
others) were purchased by me with my money. They were not
"complimentary freebies" or things I got my employer to buy for me.
So. Just how serious are you about electrodynamics?
Moron.
> I have a textbook on quantum field theory, doesn't mean I
> have studied it or understood it.
I have absolutely no doubts about that!
> [snip remainder of whining]
Why am I even bothering with this idiot?