[paul cotter]

Bored chemist, much as I hate to do this, you are in error. I have it on good authority that there is only one unicorn. Hence the correct expression is "the unicorn did it". I don't have to remind you of the rigour needed in all such scientific matters, correct units, correct dimensions and of course correct unicorn.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Hamdani,
I am so pleased that you are investigating magnetic force fields.  We also need to explain the magnoflux spin effect of the magnetic field please.   

Have you built the motor yourself, or do you know someone who has built it? Do you know a working prototype of it?
Since it uses a single phase AC power source, it would need some way to shift the phase to create asymmetry in torque direction. Commercial household fans or pumps commonly use capacitors. The secondary coil in the diagram might serve similar function. But I'm not sure if some other additional measures are necessary to produce reliable torque in one direction.
Can you share some more details, like number of turns of the coils, or rotor size? Starting from a working prototype would speed up the investigation. Otherwise, I'd have to start from scratch, which would take longer and need more effort and resources.

[Colin2B]

Bored chemist, much as I hate to do this, you are in error. I have it on good authority that there is only one unicorn. Hence the correct expression is "the unicorn did it". I don't have to remind you of the rigour needed in all such scientific matters, correct units, correct dimensions and of course correct unicorn.

Please state your authority.
I have it on excellent authority, my granddaughter, that multiple unicorns exist, apparently in many colours. However, I will concede that it is possible that only one unicorn was involved in the action (usually the pink one if I recall @Bored chemist correctly), so your expression would remain correct.

[acsinuk]

Hamdani,
The magnoflux spin effect is documented on my blogs and videos.  Have a look at this one which shows the Zanussi drain motor I used to demonstrate the effect. 

[Bored chemist]

Nobody is suggesting that electrons get accelerated to anything like the speed of light in a conductor.
So your claim at about 34 seconds makes no sense.

Were you aware of that?
(That should be a simple yes/ no answer).

You might find this dispels your misunderstandings.

[Origin]

The magnoflux spin effect is documented on my blogs and videos.

Do you have any independent scientific sources (not your site, not youtube, etc.) for magnoflux spin effect.

[paul cotter]

Colin2b, I must admit to a dreadful shortcoming on my behalf: I made a dogmatic statement on a critical scientific debate without specifying my source, mea culpa, maxima mea culpa. I am further embarrassed as I cannot find the relevant reference at this moment. I will strive with maximum effort to correct this abominable state of affairs and hope to furnish said references as soon as possible. I sincerely hope you will bear with me.

[acsinuk]

No reference quotes are needed as anyone can repeat the experiments at any time. 
Sorry, I know it is a shock to physicist to hear that electricity is not electron movements but magnons or photons moving at near the speed of light in spinning magnoflux energy in the metallic core of a transformer or motor.

[Bored chemist]

No reference quotes are needed as anyone can repeat the experiments at any time.

And they do exactly what Maxwell would have predicted.
So why have you introduced a fairy tale?
Also, you seem to have forgotten to answer this.

Nobody is suggesting that electrons get accelerated to anything like the speed of light in a conductor.
So your claim at about 34 seconds makes no sense.

Were you aware of that?
(That should be a simple yes/ no answer).

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

If I recall correctly this situation is actually quite complicated:



Where the test particle is assumed to be be at rest,   the wire has velocity v as shown.    That's complicated because the positive and negative charges in the wire then suffer a Lorentz contraction and the density of charge is changed.    It's more noticeable for the positive charges in the wire because the electrons  were moving opposite the conventional current shown and so the velocity of the electrons is less than the velocity of the positive charges.   Overall then some of the force on the test particle is due to an Electric field and not a magnetic field when you choose that reference frame.

    This has been the mainstream view of electric and magnetic fields for quite a while:   Changing frames of reference can make an Electric field look like a Magnetic Field and vice versa.

Best Wishes.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This has been the mainstream view of electric and magnetic fields for quite a while:   Changing frames of reference can make an Electric field look like a Magnetic Field and vice versa.

The problem identified here is the asymmetric response between the movement of positive and negative charges in the wire. If only electrons that move, there's no force. If only the positively charged metal lattice moves, there's a force.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

The problem identified here is the asymmetric response between the movement of positive and negative charges in the wire.

    Is it a problem?   It's often required that the positive charges don't and can't spread out despite a Lorentz contraction.   The positive charges are the metal atoms and they are locked into a lattice.    Even when Lorentz contraction puts them closer together and suggests there should be increased repulsion between them, the metal atoms cannot move apart.
     However the electrons are not like that, they are free to move around and can spread out.

Here's a 3 minute 40 sec. video from  Science Asylum  available on You Tube  that explains the general idea:

    There are many other videos such as a later video where Science Asylum explain electromagnetism again and Veritasium have quite a nice video about Magnetism.
    Alternatively you can see a textbook describing General relativity like  Spacetime and Geometry, Sean Carroll.   Where the basic approach is to say:   There's an electromagnetic field strength tensor, F_μν, and that's what's important.   A Magnetic field or Electric field are not fundamental or intrinsically real - they are only things that appear in certain reference frames.

Best Wishes.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Is it a problem?   It's often required that the positive charges don't and can't spread out despite a Lorentz contraction.   The positive charges are the metal atoms and they are locked into a lattice.    Even when Lorentz contraction puts them closer together and suggests there should be increased repulsion between them, the metal atoms cannot move apart.
     However the electrons are not like that, they are free to move around and can spread out.

Yes, it is a problem. If the difference is due to the formation of crystal lattice, then we would be able to distinguish the different response in liquid metals like mercury, or ionic solutions like some acids, bases, or salts.
Lorentz hypothesized contraction of the rod in Michelson-Morley experiment, which is a solid object, due to its movement through aether. He wasn't talking about freely moving electron.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Let's make an experiment where the positively charged test particle is at rest, while the electrons in a wire move to the left at v m/s, and the metal atoms move to the right at v m/s. Will the test particle accelerate? In what direction?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The difficulty in working with electrically charged particles/objects is that they are attracted to even neutral objects due to electric displacement. An electrically charged metal ball is attracted to the plastic hose even when it's empty and electrically neutral.

But I'm convinced about the physical interpretation of magnetic vector potential because of experiments and applications of toroid, such as in toroidal conductivity meter and toroidal transformers. They produce measurable electromagnetic phenomena even though they produce 0 magnetic field outside of the coil. IMO, the physical existence of magnetic vector potential would undermine the search for magnetic monopole.

I think I just found a way to solve this problem. But It will take a while to build the experimental setups.
Currently I am tightly occupied by my daily job which puts me as the project manager of DCS expansion for process automation. Some other tasks and projects are already on the line.
The next in the list is editing videos of polarized diffraction which I've done recording. I've also acquired some materials which will be used in some other experiments such as heat transfer in melting ice, microwave oven and transceiver, radio transceiver, and a few others. I'm not even sure which one to be done first.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

Let's make an experiment where the positively charged test particle is at rest, while the electrons in a wire move to the left at v m/s, and the metal atoms move to the right at v m/s. Will the test particle accelerate? In what direction?

   There may be insufficient information here - but here is the standard prediction based on conventional theory:
You said "wire" so we'll assume the positive charges are the metal atoms and they are locked in a lattice.
Translate to another frame where the wire stays sill  <=>  the positive charges stay still.
It's also very hard to give the electrons an arbitrarily high velocity, they tend to have an average velocity that is the drift velocity indicated by conventional theory which is actually a very low speed.   You'd need to maintain a large voltage across the wire if you want a faster dift velocity and that is difficult to do in practice.  We'll assume the velocity of the electrons is low.

   Anyway, making the translation to the frame where the wire is stationary, this leaves the test particle moving at velocity v to the left.   Meanwhile, the electrons are moving with velocity not quite 2v to the left (find the exact velocity by the velocity addition formula).   Where the wire is stationary and the electron velocity is low, then the electrons do tend to be distributed so that    the density of negative charge ≈ the density of the positive charges in the wire.   That leaves us with negligible conventional electric field generated by the charges in the wire.   Indeed in conventional theory, we consider most of what is there and surrounding the wire to be a magnetic field.   So we have a particle with velocity. v to the left in a magnetic field that is going into the page (if the test particle is below the wire,  while it's coming out of the page if the test particle was above the wire).   By the usual Lorentz force law that should be a force pushing the test particle away from the wire.   (The direction of that force is dynamic, it will change slightly as the test particle changes velocity but initially it's directly away from the wire).
    That should happen in any inertial reference frame although in some frames the explanation will be due to some contribution from an Electric field and not just a Magnetic field.
    Going back to your original frame of reference, the distance between the metal atoms would have been contracted slightly while the distance between the electrons would have been increased slightly compared to the frame I have just used.   Overall there would have been a net +ve charge density in the wire and that would have created an Electric field that repelled the test particle.

   However, if it wasn't a conventional wire and the positive metal atoms weren't locked into a lattice then I don't think you have enough information to proceed.   If the positive atoms can move and spread out then you need to know how and that would affect the charge density and hence the electric field you would observe.

Best Wishes.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's also very hard to give the electrons an arbitrarily high velocity, they tend to have an average velocity that is the drift velocity indicated by conventional theory which is actually a very low speed.   You'd need to maintain a large voltage across the wire if you want a faster dift velocity and that is difficult to do in practice.  We'll assume the velocity of the electrons is low.

Let's assume that the effects of high velocity electrons in opposite directions cancel each other. Hence we can use their average value.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You said "wire" so we'll assume the positive charges are the metal atoms and they are locked in a lattice.
Translate to another frame where the wire stays sill  <=>  the positive charges stay still.

Why can't we translate to the frame where the electrons stay still instead?  Will it change the expected result?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Going back to your original frame of reference, the distance between the metal atoms would have been contracted slightly while the distance between the electrons would have been increased slightly compared to the frame I have just used.   Overall there would have been a net +ve charge density in the wire and that would have created an Electric field that repelled the test particle.

If in the next experiment the velocities are doubled to 2v, the classical Lorentz force would be quadrupled, because the electric current is doubled, so is the relative velocity between the test particle and the wire.
Do we get the same results when using length contraction method? Do we have to also take time dilation into account? why or why not?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

However, if it wasn't a conventional wire and the positive metal atoms weren't locked into a lattice then I don't think you have enough information to proceed.   If the positive atoms can move and spread out then you need to know how and that would affect the charge density and hence the electric field you would observe.

Let's replace the wire with a hose. Wire atoms are replaced by Na+ ions, and electrons are replaced by Cl- ions.
What's the expected result?