1

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction fundamentals

« on: 12/12/2008 08:09:24 »

BC, if you want to pass over the category of intellectual impotent, demonstrate your talents, make picture and math in my comments.
I had specified that experiment is performed with common B, v, etc values. I had specified that for high energy particle there will be a further treatment.
In the link specified http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node73.html, (and in any book of low level physics) a particle entering into a magnetic field does not emits electromagnetic waves.
So you should demonstrate how a magnetic fields operate. It curved the actual trajectory (according to a classical mechanic is accelerated, according to a general relativity the curvature is a illusion because there are no ,,force", only the space around particle is modified), but in the same time it does not modify the absolute value of particle velocity, only its direction.
Does the magnetic interaction respect the third Newton law too? Why actual demonstration does not make any reference of ,,reaction" of magnetic field"? Of course is a small reaction, but it should implemented in the demonstration.
Long time ago lived a great man called Newton, who besides a huge and correct work in physics domain, made some mistakes. Two are more visible: the centrifugal-centripetal force related to absolute space  and second the deviation of photons as result of mass attraction.
The next generations of physicists fought and still fight for the interpretation of this two errors.
The nature of the centripetal force and a entire new perspective of this problem is formulated in Gravitation theory, Relativity theory and in a further text called ,,Cinematic of motion".
The problem of photon deviation is solved in a book related to corpuscular nature of light.
First you demonstrate me and to other readers that you are able to write few math and to demonstrate the absurdity of upward experiments and after that maybe I will loose my time to explain you the centripetal acceleration.

2

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction fundamentals

« on: 12/12/2008 01:13:53 »

OK, let's make a last trial to turn the forum in a scientific discussion.
An experiment with magnetic field - charged particle interaction and another simplified experiment with electromagnetic induction are provided. Every comment must be related to scientific discusion and of course a demonstration of the absurdity of presented experiments is welcome.


charged particle in magnetic field

As reference a good text describing the actual interpretation is provided at: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node73.html
For simplicity, let's consider a particle with speed v entering into a portion of magnetic field, and the same particle go out from magnetic field after a semi period, having the orientation of speed antiparalel to the original one, like in fig. 1.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1.

As is described in the link and written in every low or advanced physic book, a particle of mass m, moving in a circular orbit of radius r, with constant speed v, is acted by an acceleration expressed as mv exp(2)/r. This acceleration is always directed to the centre of the orbit so the acceleration is always perpendicular to the particle's instantaneous direction of motion.
In the same time a principle of electrodynamics admits that any charged particle when accelerate emits electromagnetic waves.
If a particle in a magnetic field is accelerated, it should emit electromagnetic waves. In the same time, at this level, the emission of electromagnetic waves is not continuous, but discrete according to Planck law. 
If the charge emits electromagnetic wave how is possible to have ,,exactly” the same speed as initial one? When is the photon emitted? Does the emission take place at the entering into magnetic field, at the maximum curvature of the trajectory, at the escape from magnetic field?
 Considering some usual data for v, B, it is possible to calculate the acceleration of particle and the frequency of emitted electromagnetic radiation. The specialists in the physics able to judge my theory should be able to make this calculation. I want to see this demonstration.

After performing this demonstration by actual adepts of orthodox physics interpretation, a second experiment must be performed.
A simple conductor with a current of intensity I (preferable of decades of amperes) is curved to 180 º as in fig. 2. The curvature of the conductor is supposed to be high enough in order to avoid the interaction between magnetic fields generated by the change of electric current direction.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2.

The curvature of conductor is made using mechanical action and as result of this action, acceleration over the electron moving into conductor is performed. As result of this mechanical action, two ammeter connected in the point 1 and 2 of the conductor should register for a time period a difference in the intensity of counted electric current. This is the prediction of actual orthodox physics, taking into consideration the movement of the electrons (with speed of mm/second) and the mechanical action suffered by conductor (greater then mm/second). Beside this, the change of charged particle direction of moving should lead to electromagnetic waves emission. I ask to have a complete demonstration of frequency of this emission in order to be performed an experiment to evidence it.


Electromagnetic induction simplified experiment

For the proposed experiment a circuit similar to one presented in a university course is necessary - http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/316/lectures/node88.html.
At this stage the experiments is hypothetical (even is very simple to be performed).

The circuit is composed from a conducting rod PM, moving along a U-shaped conducting frame, in the presence of a uniform magnetic field with magnetic induction B as in fig.1 . The magnetic field is directed into the page in the fig 1., perpendicular on the shape and the rod has a uniform motion to the right with constant velocity v.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1.
In the link a detailed discussion is provided, but we are interested only by origin of electric current in the shape.
Quote from site: ,,The magnetic field exerts a negligibly small force on the charge when it is traversing the non-moving part of the circuit (since the charge is moving very slowly). However, when the charge is traversing the moving rod it experiences an upward (in the figure) magnetic force of magnitude f =qvB (assuming that q>0).” In real case, the electrons are moving, so the force is downward and the electric current (according to accepted direction) is upwards.
In a previous message it was highlighted that according to actual electromagnetism there is a connection between n electromagnetism and geometry.
For the proposed experiment, only the shape of the rod PM is changed, more precisely from linear to angular. In order to have a simpler interpretation, the modified rod forms a rectangular isosceles triangle with PNM angle of 90º  as in fig. 2
Let's see what the predictions of actual electromagnetism are when such rod is moving to the right with the same constant velocity v.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2. Modified rod experiment


Applying the Lorenz force in both side of the rod, it can be observed that Lorenz force is directed in both cases toward exterior of the frame. In both MN and NP sides of the rod, the Lorenz force is equal as value and opposite as direction. In this condition a ,,common sense “ interpretation should admit the non generation of an electric current in this particular case.
If, on the other side, experimentally, a current is counted in the circuit, actual physics should determine in what direction are the electrons moving: upward or downward.
In the fig. 2 a downward movement is supposed. Can be accepted as real such charge movement and it is possible to be accepted these simultaneously charge movement from two region of a circuit toward another region of circuit?
Maybe is necessary to redefine the electric current.
I wait especially from bikeman  to correct my low level demonstration and after that he can express his philosophy and considerations about what is wrong and what is right.

In proposed theory, the electric current is not represented by a charge movement.
In proposed theory, a beam of charge does not emit electromagnetic radiation in an electric or magnetic field, at least for common B and E values. A beam of particle emits electromagnetic radiation when are interacting into an electric or magnetic field (see the Klystron principle as example). The case of high energy particle into accelerating field is treated separately in the future Elementary particle and nuclear physics book.

I will not tolerate further unscientific comments from those who are learning physics or from impotent intellectuals. Any demonstration of the absurdity of proposed experiment is welcomed.

3

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction fundamentals

« on: 10/12/2008 10:33:11 »

For having an idea that I made something in a mass spectroscopy field anyone can visit the link:

https://publications.european-patent-office.org/PublicationServer/getpdf.jsp?cc=EP&pn=1939142&ki=A1


A teacher only teach ....
A inventor should have something more...

4

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction fundamentals

« on: 10/12/2008 09:41:27 »

I have asked you because in 2000 books related to electromagnetism and in every school in the world, and in every university in the world, is admitted that Lorenz force does not produce a acceleration of a particle. 
In the simplest case, when a particle enter into a uniform magnetic field with speed v, only the trajectory of particle is curved, but the particle escape from this uniform magnetic field with the same speed.
This is what is written and I asked you to formulate or to treat this banal subject because You have affirmed that Lorenz force produce acceleration.
The science makes reference to recognised text and you can take the subject from a well known book. You have presented a ,,revelation" on wikipedia, unrelated to the subject.
If you want, you can pay and I will give you lessons on how a Mass spectrometer works.
The sector instrument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sector_instrument), use a appropriate combination of magnetic and electric fields in order to reduce the size of a mass spectrometer or to ensure a better separation for closed mass ions. This does not means Lorenz force produce acceleration; without knowing the author of the text I think he made a good job. He presents the total force acting on the charged particle, but he does not make any reference to acceleration in magnetic field. 

If you are able to point something useful at my theory, please do it. In other case, your stupid comments without any scientific fundamental, does not interest me.So, if you want to loose your time with comments unrelated to the science, avoid my posts.
Even I will be banned, I will not tolerate further stupid comments to my messages.
Do you think my theory is dependent on the nakedscientist site?
I have every month more then thousand new visitors on my site, so non me ne frega niente.
I have pointed with other occasions why I post here. You can have still another reason.
I want to see the face of  professors from Cambridge physics department ( it must be reminded that Cambridge is the 2nd or 3rd ranked university in world) when this theory will be accepted, and they had this theory under their eyes. More than that, one of them (it is not important the name) as referent refuted the publication of articles from this theory.
If I will be banned, I will make a complain to the forum administrator to find his opinion.
From the people involved in physics, it is possible to separate at least 3 categories:
1. those who learn;
2. those who teach;
3. those who modify a theory of physics.
We are not in the XIX century when a brilliant mind like Faraday, without any scientific background, can change something in science. There is a huge amount of scientific information and who wants to be in 3rd category is obliged to have fullfiled the others.
I have fullfiled for decades both 1 and 2 conditions. Now I have conditions to change the fundamentals of physics.
You are at the stage 1 or 2 and you are not able to judge a new theory.

Therefore avoid to make at my posts, unscientific comments. If something is not clear, if you have any doubt, remember that you are in the 1 or 2 category and the author is in other category and you should respect him at least for his work.  Of course, it is possible from my part to propose a completely wrong theory, but in this case, before making me idiot, you should demonstrate the absurdity of proposed materials. As I loose time making picture and writing math, you should respond in the same manner.

 

5

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction fundamentals

« on: 10/12/2008 04:56:37 »

Bikeman,
For the beginning I please you to give me and to all readers a explanation (according to actual orthodox theory) for this simple experiment performed here. Up to date, even I've read about 2000 books about electromagnetism in English, french, German, Italian, Spanish and Romanian, I haven't found a mathematical treatment of the subject.
Some books avoid completely the subject, and the others makes reference to well known Einstein paper ,,On the electrodynamics of moving bodies". The subject is not treated properly in the reminded paper, so a detailed description from a support of actual theory should be welcome.
Related to the process of publication of this theory, at this stage I'm not interested to publish in a reputed journal. I'm content with a invitation from Natural Philosophy Alliance invitation for their next meeting in May 2009(http://www.worldnpa.org/php/DatabaseMenu.php?turn_page=1&tab=1), and I will try to convince this group of dissidents on simplicity and correctitude of my ideas.
 For the orthodox scientist and their official representants I should thank you for their refuse on publishing during about 20 years. I have used this refuse in my advantage and I have build a affair from this. For the moment the actions value of my affair are very low. But who knows the future?
For the other two intellectual impotents, for the moment, I don't have enough time to present a detailed answer. It is necessary to present a clarification: a impotent mental is a person who is not able to formulate a independent idea. He knows something and all the time he applies what he knows like a robot.
Completely different is a stupid who is not able at least to learn and to understand something.
The Lorenz force and his characteristics is a banal subject learned by schoolboy at 15 years in Romania (at least). I don't have time to search for a English book related to subject, but your reference to wikipedia, denote that you are passing from a impotent to stupid.
Did you have a scientific book or the only source is wikipedia ( collection of article made by anyone) ?
And even in this article the charge passes through a succession of electric and magnetic fields so read it carefully ....

6

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction fundamentals

« on: 08/12/2008 20:33:23 »

Up to date, I had presented my ideas with a part dedicated to actual interpretation, then a part with arguments and proofs against this interpretation and finally a new simpler interpretation of the phenomena. For lasts messages the new interpretation is missing, due to effervescent reactions generated to few well positioned adepts of actual interpretation.
Despite their ,,high level of knowledges in physics", their comments are only words like in a well known french song ... Parole, parole, parole...
It is time to proof their knowledge in the field of physics and to demonstrate my absurd interpretation presented in this post.
I they are not able to draw few line and to apply a simple formula known by low level schoolboy, this means they worth the title of intellectual impotent no.1 and intellectual impotent no.2.
Therefore if they will continue to make stupid comments without connection to the posted message, my answer will start with this title of ,,nobless".
Because someone must be completely stupid to affirm that Lorenz force change the acceleration of a particle when in 2000 scientific books is written the contrary.
So it is time to come with a experiment which prove this acceleration of a particle due to a Lorenz force.

7

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction fundamentals

« on: 08/12/2008 09:58:19 »

The intellectual impotence of some guys, who are self considering experts in physics, but are not able to write a simple scalar or vector formula, amaze me ...
Maybe is better to be made a test of BC supporter's able to apply Lorenz formula !

8

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction fundamentals

« on: 08/12/2008 02:22:16 »

"By comparison with electric force, the Lorenz force changes only the direction of a charged particle without any acceleration. "

It seems we are at a literature club, where the sentence topic is important and not the content of the text.
So the sentence is reformulated:
By comparison with electric force, the Lorenz force changes only the direction of a charged particle without changing its initial acceleration.

9

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction fundamentals

« on: 07/12/2008 18:37:50 »

Electromagnetic induction fundamentals

Background and actual explanation

   The Maxwell equations and their predictions constitute the starting point for special theory of relativity. 
 Analyzing the interaction of a magnet and a conductor in frame of these equations, two different situations are observed: when magnet is at rest and conductor is moving and opposite, when conductor is moving and magnet is at rest.
For this elementary experiment a bar magnet, a coil and a galvanometer are necessary.
When there is no movement of the magnet bar relative to coil, or there is no magnetic field, there is no movement inside the galvanometer:
B = const. or B= 0    -->     ∂B/∂t = 0     and finally    E = 0.

When the bar magnet is moving (fig. 1), a variable magnetic field is generated (∂B/∂t ≠ 0).

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1.

This variable magnetic field, in turn, generates induced electric field according to the first Maxwell's equation:
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

When bar magnet stands still and the coil is moving (fig. 2), there is no time variation of magnetic field and there is no induced electric field, according to Maxwell's equations:
   B = Const.    and     ∂B/∂t = 0     and   E = 0

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2

   However, the galvanometer needle is equally moving left and right as in the precedent case.
 The explanation of this asymmetry in actual physic is related to the transformation of electric and magnetic field in different reference systems.
An observer at rest relative to a conducting loop sees a changing flux of the magnetic field B as the magnet glides through the loop. According to Faraday’s law this movement induces an electric field E, which drives a current in the loop due to the electric force qE acting on particles of charge q.
But an observer at rest relative to the magnet sees the loop sweep with velocity v; now the magnetic force qv×B drives the current.
In this way special relativity connects the phenomenon of magnetism and electricity. Magnetism arises from the motion of charge. Different observers, in different inertial frames, will record different magnetic fields. In some cases, the magnetism may disappear in a given inertial frame. However, the total electro-magnetic force will still be the same for all observers.
Based on this consideration, actual physics should reconsider the Lorenz force as being at the same level of importance as any of the Maxwell equations and to include it as a sixths equation (the fifth regard the dependence of electric and magnetic characteristics on geometry).

Why the actual explanation is wrong.

I am not a fan of actual orthodox theory so it is time to analyze in detail the actual explanation and its correlation with experimental part.
It is quite complicate to enter into detail in case of a magnet moving, because the Faraday’s law does not have a basic explanation or a mechanism of electric field generation from a variable magnetic field. Of course in the book a simple and intuitive new explanation is offered for this law.
Therefore the discussion will be focused on the well known Lorenz force expressed as:


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

The first inadvertencies regard the ,,nature” of Lorenz force. By comparison with electric force, the Lorenz force changes only the direction of a charged particle without any acceleration. Therefore, in principle, this force is not able to accelerate the electrons in a region of space and to establish an electron circulation in a closed circuit.
For the sake of discussion, this absurdity is leaved aside and the detailed electron-magnet interaction is presented.     
Let’s consider a magnet bar as in fig 3. and let’s establish the direction of  magnetic induction B in the magnetic field generated by magnet. Magnetic induction is a vector and is tangent all the time to the line field. As consequences, for any magnet, magnetic induction changes the sign, in the space around magnet, relative to N-S axe. For a region of space around north pole, B is directed to positive x, after that turns and is directed to negative x and finally, for a region close to south pole change again to positive x direction. 

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 3.

If the Lorenz force is correct, an electron with speed v, found in different positions with different orientation of magnetic induction B, will be acted on the same force as value, but with different orientations.
Considering a simple case of a rectangular loop, moving with speed v, directed to negative x direction, at beginning the direction of loop speed and magnetic induction are antiparallel like in fig. 4.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]


Figure 4

In this condition the force acting over electrons is:
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

When the magnetic induction change the sign, more precisely the magnet passes through the loop as in fig 5, the Lorenz force will be:
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

When the magnetic induction change again the direction, in a position symmetric to initial case (fig. 6) again the Lorenz force is null.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 6.

Of course, even the greatest interaction is along the NS magnet direction it can be argued that B is not all the time parallel or antiparallel with v.
Let’s analyze this case too, so all possibilities of interactions are covered. In order to deduce the entire interaction over the loop is necessary to observe the symmetry of magnetic field produced by magnet as in fig. 7.


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 7.
In the fig. 7, the interactions of electrons from two opposite parts of loop are figured. The angle between magnetic induction and direction of motion during loop movement cover all angle between 0 and 180 º. In fig. 7 a particular angle, let’s say 125º is figured.
When the formula for Lorenz force is applied, it can be observed that electrons in both part of the circuit are acted by equal forces. Therefore, due to the magnetic field symmetry, the electrons in ab and cd part of loop will run in the same direction (it is not important to establish in which direction).
The same reasoning can be made for the bc and ad part of loop.
When the general circulation of electron is counted at loop level it can be observed that simultaneously electrons are leaving the loop through both conductors, or another possibility: electrons are entering simultaneously through both conductors.
Maybe the experts in the vectors and electric current are so polite to present the ,,orthodox” explanation.

10

New Theories / Inductance and the missing law in actual electromagnetism

« on: 07/12/2008 12:46:56 »

You will see what does a vector mean with next post related to a simple magnetic conductor experiment (a basic experiment in electromagnetism)

11

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction and absence of charge movement experiment

« on: 07/12/2008 12:33:00 »

How many capacitor are working with a plate and using Earth as secondary plate ? When I will see these kind of device working, I will agree with you.

12

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction and absence of charge movement experiment

« on: 06/12/2008 21:54:52 »

It depends what capacity means for you. An electroscope does not have a capacity as a capacitor has; the foils are in contact so no ,,opposite" charge accumulate on them. In the frame of actual theory, both foil can be simultaneously negative or simultaneously positive. The capacitor is completely different: a plate is positive and the other is negative.

13

New Theories / Inductance and the missing law in actual electromagnetism

« on: 06/12/2008 20:08:03 »

Of coure there are a lot of vectors, but there are only 3 directions in real space. In mathematical space there are n dimmensions.

14

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction and absence of charge movement experiment

« on: 06/12/2008 20:02:43 »

I have time to wait the vote of the history. For the moment I have to mach to do at my theory instead of searching votes to persons who know 5% from my theory. If the support of the crowd give you satisfaction, you can search for adepts.
But you should know something.... the support of the crowd will help you if you are on the right way or if you are able to fool the crowd.
But, if the crowd realise that you are a cheater...... you may have surprises.
As it can be seen, there are no other scientific comments, so it's time to leave this post to fall down in this list......

15

New Theories / Cerenkov effect and its interpretation

« on: 06/12/2008 19:45:57 »

As far as I saw, you are not able to count up to four in English ( not in another language). Is it necessary to remind you the Daniel and concentration cell and the process of numbering? Maybe you need an abacus?
I will stop in the next life or if the forum ban my messages. So convince the administration of the forum to do this and of course I will use another forum. I suppose you wrote a lot of books about actual orthodox physics and you have a good job in a top level British University. Maybe it is time to think what will be the consequences of your actions upon your career and your university rank when my theory will be accepted. I'm sure that you will not be retired at that time and I don't think you will remain a ,,hero member" here or a researcher or professor.  You don't realise that I play chess with actual science .... !!! in what purpose

16

New Theories / Franck Hertz experiment and quantum hypothesis

« on: 06/12/2008 11:20:17 »

You have right when the voltage is a ,,generic term" like voltage of atmosphere point. But speaking of Frank-Hertz tube, it is by default considered the cathode at  0V and the anode at increasing voltage. So the 5 V is the voltage of anode related to cathode. Your comment does not change the situation. A current of amperes size and few volts does not permit gas conduction in a gas tube (except so called tunnel effect for small distances between anode and cathode), but a  microampere current and high voltage will produce a visible effect in a gas tube.

17

New Theories / Cerenkov effect and its interpretation

« on: 06/12/2008 08:09:38 »

Photons are particle so by definition they have zero wavelength.

18

New Theories / Franck Hertz experiment and quantum hypothesis

« on: 06/12/2008 08:08:10 »

A real physical model should explain a simple thing: how is possible for a Franck Hertz tube to have a electric current and a gas discharge at 5V potential and for a common gas tube there are necessary hundreds of volts. The detailed explanation is in the book.

19

New Theories / Electromagnetic induction and absence of charge movement experiment

« on: 06/12/2008 08:02:17 »

You are talking nonsense. A electroscope is not a capacitor, where in principle there is the possibility to have two different charge on every plate. For example, in case of induced charge you don't have a ,,charge" on the electroscope. Actual electrostatic ,,admit" a separation of charge, even this is a absurdity as is presented in the book. When you will be able to measure the potential of a electroscope charged by induction, then come and make comments. 

20

New Theories / Inductance and the missing law in actual electromagnetism

« on: 06/12/2008 07:50:57 »

Inductance and the missing law in actual electromagnetism

Maxwell formulated in 1864, a set of differential equations describing the space and time dependence of the electromagnetic field and these are considered as forming the basis of classical electrodynamics.
Maxwell's equations in differential form are:
 [ Invalid Attachment ]  Faraday's Law of Electromagnetic Induction

 [ Invalid Attachment ]  Generalized Ampere's Law

 [ Invalid Attachment ]  There are no magnetic monopoles.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]  Gauss's Law of charge conservation

Besides these, there are the constitutive relations and  the equation of continuity.

Particularly important for present and further discussion are the first two equations:
  1. Faraday's law of induction describes how a time-varying magnetic field B gives rise to an electric field E.
  2.Generalized Ampere's Law indicates that a time-varying electric field will give rise to a magnetic field even in the absence of a free current, i.e J = 0.Consequently a  magnetic fields can be generated in two ways: by electrical current (this was the original "Ampère's law") and by changing electric fields. Maxwell observed that Ampere law did not give mathematically consistent results in circuits with capacitors so he introduced a new term known as ,,displacement current’’. The concept of ,,displacement current’’ represents the original work of Maxwell and this concept will be discussed detailed in the book or in the future posts.
   As far we are in a training period, we warm up with a simple concept – inductance and how this concept is integrated in actual electromagnetism laws.
   All modern texts admit that, Maxwell equations can be used to explain and predict all macroscopic electromagnetic phenomena.
   Therefore a very simple circuit is proposed and it is very interesting to observe what are the prediction of these ,,famous equations”. The circuit is formed from a long conductor with resistance R connected in series with a lamp of resistance R’. A source of DC current and a source of AC with possibility to modify the frequency are necessary.
In the first and simplest case using the DC source the circuit presented in fig. 1 is built.  The other necessary conductors present a negligible resistance

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 1

If the Maxwell equations are applied in this particular case, the intensity of electric current in the circuit has the expression:

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Let’s modify a little bit the circuit, putting the resistance R in a loop form as in fig. 2

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Figure 2
The components of the circuit are the same, only the geometrical form was modified and as result a new term appears in the current equation, which has the form:

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

where L has a specific value characteristic for the loop.

Let’s modify again the geometric form of the circuit and to form a coil as in fig. 3.
In this case the value of the term L modifies again to L’ and the current through circuit has the form:


 [ Invalid Attachment ]

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

    Both L and L' values (and the concept per se) are introduced based on experimental consideration without any possibility of prediction from actual electromagnetism.
    If the DC source is changed with an AC, the situation is even worse. With increasing of alternate current frequency, a simple conductor presents a measurable inductance (L). Carefully measurements can demonstrate that even in case of fig. 1 with a DC source, the resistance R has inductance comportment too, but is too small to be observed and used in common applications.
As can be seen in presented example, the intensity of a current in a circuit is ,,dependent” on a geometry of circuit. So, there is necessary to introduce in Maxwell equation a new term in order to relate the electric and magnetic characteristic with geometry. If we go a little bit further, it is possible to demonstrate that ,,electromagnetism” is a simple N dimensional space geometry with some tensors equations as is actual gravitation.
    Coming back to reality, a trustful theory of physic should implement the reaction of a circuit to a modification of a stationary regime as a basic principle.
   Actual electromagnetism is not able to introduce this concept as a specific law, because it will appear like a ,,internal force use”. More precisely, according to generalized Ampere law a variable electric field (E₀) produce a magnetic effect (B₀). In a ,,common   sense” interpretation, this ,,produced magnetic effect” (B₀) can’t generate again a new electric field (E₁). If actual electromagnetism admits the new electric field (E₁) as real, this variable field should produce a new magnetic effect (B₁), and this conversion will continue for an indefinite time. The real comportment of a coil contradicts these infinite cycles of electric-magnetic field conversion.
   In the book a new perspective of these phenomena will be provided. The energy stored in the magnetic field of the inductor will gain a new interpretation. It is absurd to suppose that inductors store the kinetic energy of moving electrons in the form of a magnetic field.