[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here is the visualization of the second experiment, which start from the first as described before. If the charged particle is stationary to the wire, no magnetic force is received.



Next, the wire is zoomed to show the electrons and metal atoms inside.



From the picture above, the electrons inside the wire move to the left with speed v, but particle q doesn't receive magnetic force.
Now if the wire is moved to the right with speed v, the speed of electrons becomes 0, while the speed of the metal atoms = v. It is shown that magnetic force F is produced downward.



The picture above is equivalent to the picture from previous post.



Here we can conclude that electron's movement is not responded by the particle, while atom's movement produces magnetic force to the particle. It seems that for a long time we had missed the difference between atoms and free electrons which cause electric current and produce magnetic force.
For the second experiment, we will study the effect of the movement of charged particles inside a conductor (or convector) toward the test particle. We will study the hypothesis that magnetic force is not only affected by the magnitude of electric charge that moves inside a conductor (or convector), but also affected by the mass of the particle.
Electric current in a copper wire is produced by the flow of electrons inside. The charge and mass of electrons are always the same, so we need some other particles as electric current producers to get reference. For that we will replace the conductor by a hose filled by electrolyte solution that contains ions, since ions are also electrically charged and have various masses. Some of electrolytic solutions that will be used are NaCl, H2SO4, HCl, CuSO4, FeCl3.

We can make a table showing the force experienced by the stationary test particle in various velocities of both positive and negative particles in the wire. I'll use standard Lorentz force to calculate the force, which states that
F = B.q.v
Where B is proportional to electric current in the wire, which depends on velocity difference between positive and negative particles in the wire.
v represents the velocity difference between the test particle and the wire. Since the test particle is stationary, it's merely determined by the velocity of positive particles in the wire.
It's assumed that all positive particles have uniform velocity. Negative particle has uniform velocity as well.

The first table below shows the value of electric current, which depends on the difference of velocity between positive and negative particle in the wire.
   v+   -4   -3   -2   -1   0    1    2    3    4
v-                              
-4       0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8
-3      -1    0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7
-2      -2   -1    0    1    2    3    4    5    6
-1      -3   -2   -1    0    1    2    3    4    5
 0      -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2    3    4
 1      -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2    3
 2      -6   -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2
 3      -7   -6   -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1
 4      -8   -7   -6   -5   -4   -3   -2   -1    0

The second table below shows the velocity of the wire relative to test particle. It's determined solely by velocity of positive particle.
   v+   -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
v-                              
-4      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
-3      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
-2      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
-1      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 0      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 1      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 2      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 3      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4
 4      -4   -3   -2   -1   0   1   2   3   4

The third table shows the force experienced by test particle, which is simply the multiplication of each cell in both tables above.
   v+   -4   -3   -2   -1    0    1    2     3     4
v-                              
-4       0    -3   -4   -3    0    5   12   21   32
-3       4     0   -2   -2    0    4   10   18   28
-2       8     3    0   -1    0    3     8   15   24
-1      12    6    2    0    0    2     6   12   20
0       16    9    4    1    0    1     4     9   16
1       20   12   6    2    0    0     2     6   12
2       24   15   8    3    0   -1     0    3     8
3       28   18   10   4   0   -2    -2    0     4
4       32   21   12   5   0   -3    -4   -3     0

For those who hasn't gotten where these three tables come from, it's based on following assumptions:
1. The formula to calculate the Lorentz force, which states that F = B.q.v is correct.
2. Magnetic field B is proportional to electric current in the wire.
3. Electric current in the wire depends on velocity difference between positive and negative particles in the wire. If they move at the same velocity relative to a reference, the current is zero.
4. Electric charge of the test particle is constant during the experiment.

5. The principle of relativity applies here, which implies that the value of velocity in the formula is determined by relative velocity between the test particle and the wire. No absolute reference is required. Their velocity relative to the laboratory is not relevant.
6. The values in the tables are obtained in the reference frame of the test particle.
7. For simplicity, it's assumed that all positive particles have uniform velocity. Negative particle has uniform velocity as well.

If you think that my conclusion is false, which assumptions do you think are the causes of that mistake?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

(2) how can there be more positives than negatives in a neutral piece of matter?

You need to learn something about electrostatic precipitation.

I brought electrostatic precipitation in the discussion as a counterexample to your incorrect conclusion that there can't be more positives than negatives forces in a neutral piece of matter.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you think that my conclusion is false, which assumptions do you think are the causes of that mistake?

It may not be explicitly stated before, but I assume that Newton's third law of motion applies here. For any force exerted to the test particle because of motion of the wire, an equal but opposite force is exerted to the wire. It conserves the total momentum of the system.

[alancalverd]

Sorry, HY, but I'm not prepared to wade through your torrent of nonsense. What point are you trying to make?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Sorry, HY, but I'm not prepared to wade through your torrent of nonsense. What point are you trying to make?

My point is, we've gotten used to the concepts of electric and magnetic fields to describe interactions among electrically charged particles while ignoring their masses.

If gravity and magnetism are related, you should be able to predict the behavior of gravity when you alter a magnetic field.

Please make a prediction and test it.

You're getting the causality reversed. The magnetism is the effects. Gravity and electricity are the causes.

Both inertia and gravity depend on mass.
Inerttia is defined as

a property of matter by which it continues in its existing state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line, unless that state is changed by an external force

While gravity is defined as

the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.

In other words, effect of mass of a body to its own motion is called inertia. While effect of mass of a body to the motion of other bodies at a distance is called gravity. Inertial and gravitational mass have been demonstrated to have the same value to a high precision.

In my case, the mass of the ions determined the force exerted to the electrons in the metal cans. Which means it's more related to gravity.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Thoughts like this had motivated me to study electromagnetism further than just from literature.
https://intuitivephysics.me/faraday-derivation-part1
https://physicintuited.wordpress.com/2021/05/07/why-faradays-law-is-weird/

This is part 1 of two articles on Faraday?s Law. In the first part, I attempt to clear up some confusions about the different forms of Faraday?s Law and provide a simple derivation of Faraday?s Law. In the second part, we explore some quirks and ?exceptions? of Faraday?s Law.
Contents
Part 1
The 3 confusing forms of Faraday?s Law
Derivation of Faraday?s Law and motional EMF
Grand Conclusion and last thoughts
Part 2
Several exceptions to Faraday?s Law and why they are exceptions
Final Puzzle

Faraday?s Law
I?ve read 3 different textbooks on electromagnetism. Each provided a different description of what it defines as Faraday?s Law.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://www1.astrophysik.uni-kiel.de/~hhaertel/PUB/Challenging-Faraday-Lorentz.pdf

Challenging Faraday's flux law and the Lorentz force
by some simple new measurements on a Faraday disk?
Hermann Haertel
Guest scientist at
ITAP ?Institute for Theoretical Physics and Astrophysics
University Kiel
Summary
The question of whether Faraday's flux law is universal or whether there are excep-
tions has long been controversial. This discussion seemed to have recently come to a
conclusion in favour of the generality of Faraday?s Flux Law.
The present article raises this question again with the aid of some rather simple
measurements carried out on a Faraday disk. The collected results are surprising and
call for an attempt to reconcile them with the supposedly generally applicable Fara-
day?s flux law. An alternative theory to this law is indicated.
Keywords: Electromagnetic Induction, Faraday?s flux law, Lorentz force, Weber?s
fundamental law of Electrodynamics, Faraday?s generator.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Phys-Teacher-V30-p480-483(1992).pdf

On the Velocity in the
Lorentz force Law
By A.K. T. Assis and RM. Peixoto
Classical electromagnetism is composed of three distinct parts, namely,
(1) Maxwell's equations; (2) Constitutive relations depending on the
medium(1ikeOhm'slawV=RI,D = fE, 1 = (fE,S = )lH , etc.); and (3) the
Lorentz force law. This last one states that a point charge q moving in an ar-
bitrary electromagnetic field is acted on by a force
(I)
-> .......... .....
In this equation E E (r, t ) is the electric field at a point r where the charge ~ ~ ~
q is located at the time t, and B = B (r, t) is the magnetic induction at the same
point and at the same time.
Thc velocity -; that appears in Eg. (1) is the instantaneous velocity of the test
charge q. A fundamental question is: Velocity of q relative to what? Of course
position, velocity, and acceleration arc not intrinsic properties of any system, and
any body can have sillluitaneously different velocities relative to different objects.
What is the velocity of a man who is driving a car on a road at 80 km/h? Relative
to his own car it is zero, relative to the Earth it is 80 kmfh, relative to another car
moving in the opposite direction at 60 km/h it is 140 km/h, relative to the Sun it
is approximately 30 km/s, and so on.
Physically there are many meaningful possibilities: (A) The velocity of the
charge q relative to a fixed ether in space, or relative to an ether at rest in the frame
of the "fixed stars" (like the "aether" of Maxwell and Fresnel1
); (B) Relative to
the laboratory or to the Earth; (C) Relative to an inertial frame of reference; (D)
Relative to an arbitrary observer, not necessarily an inertial one; (E) Relative to
the macroscopic source of the magnetic field B (a magnet or a wire carrying a
current /); (F) Relative to an average motion of the microscopic charges which
generate 8, the electrons; and (G )Relative to the magnetic field. As a matter of
fact, in the dcvelopment of electrodynamics many force laws were proposed with
different quantities being relevant to them. In Weber's electrodynamics, for
instance, which is the oldest of all these models, only the relative velocities and
accelerations between interacting charges were important, so that the force always
had the same value for all observcrs.2
-
9 In Clausius's theory, on the other hand,
the force law called for the velocities of the charges relative to an ether.

My initial question was basically the same as in the article above.

[Bored chemist]

Here's the sketch of the experimental setup. I think this is so simple that anyone can replicate it.


In case it hasn't been obvious, the whole system should be electrically isolated from its environment. Including the ground below the cans.

A represents clamp Ampere meter in AC mode. V represents Voltmeter in DC millivolt mode.

If I actually set up this experiment, and show that there is no voltage, will you shut up about it?

if so, I'd like proper specifications, sizes currents, concentrations etc so you can't say I didn't do it right.

[alancalverd]

 

My point is, we've gotten used to the concepts of electric and magnetic fields to describe interactions among electrically charged particles while ignoring their masses.

And when mass is important, we include it. How else can I operate a linear accelerator? Or teach classic experiments to determine e/m and the mass of an electron? 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

My point is, we've gotten used to the concepts of electric and magnetic fields to describe interactions among electrically charged particles while ignoring their masses.

And when mass is important, we include it. How else can I operate a linear accelerator? Or teach classic experiments to determine e/m and the mass of an electron? 

The mass of the source of magnetic field doesn't show anywhere in Lorentz force formula.

Here it is.

This video provide theoretical background for designing an electrodynamic balance, intended to study the origin of magnetic force, and its relationship with electricity and gravity.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's the sketch of the experimental setup. I think this is so simple that anyone can replicate it.


In case it hasn't been obvious, the whole system should be electrically isolated from its environment. Including the ground below the cans.

A represents clamp Ampere meter in AC mode. V represents Voltmeter in DC millivolt mode.

If I actually set up this experiment, and show that there is no voltage, will you shut up about it?

if so, I'd like proper specifications, sizes currents, concentrations etc so you can't say I didn't do it right.

You can see from the screen shot, the current is 0.93 Ampere. In the subsequent experiment I made it closer to 1 Ampere.

Now I'm done recording the experiment using 3 types of chloride salts, ie NaCl, KCl, and MgCl2. It will take some time to edit, add narrative and illustration, and then upload it to my YouTube channel. So please be patient, since I'm having a tight schedule in my work place. So little time so much to do.

Her are some observations during the experiment.
Even with the same solutions in both containers, and no electric current flowing through them, some voltage was shown. It disappeared when the cans were connected, but reappeared after they were disconnected.
Difference in volume of the liquids affects the voltage readings, even with no current.
Electrostatic charge build up on the liquids affects the voltage readings. It can occur when the liquid is poured into the container, or other handling related to triboelectricity.

To minimize variance, the solutions used in the experiment were set to have conductivity around 19 mS/cm, because the portable conductivity meter I used can't show any value above 20 mS/cm.

You might be sceptical about the experiment, and want to conduct it yourself to be sure. So, here's a sneak peek from a screenshot of the video recording. I hope it can help you replicate the experiment.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you have tried and failed to reproduce this experiment, you can show in details what you have done, so we can identify what are the differences which may cause the different results.

[alancalverd]

Even with the same solutions in both containers, and no electric current flowing through them, some voltage was shown. It disappeared when the cans were connected, but reappeared after they were disconnected.
Difference in volume of the liquids affects the voltage readings, even with no current.
Electrostatic charge build up on the liquids affects the voltage readings. It can occur when the liquid is poured into the container, or other handling related to triboelectricity.

All entirely as expected, though your drawing clearly doesn't represent what you actually did!  And full marks for noticing the effect  of pouring the liquids.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Even with the same solutions in both containers, and no electric current flowing through them, some voltage was shown. It disappeared when the cans were connected, but reappeared after they were disconnected.
Difference in volume of the liquids affects the voltage readings, even with no current.
Electrostatic charge build up on the liquids affects the voltage readings. It can occur when the liquid is poured into the container, or other handling related to triboelectricity.

All entirely as expected, though your drawing clearly doesn't represent what you actually did!  And full marks for noticing the effect  of pouring the liquids.

How would you change in the drawing to represent what I did better?

[Bored chemist]

if so, I'd like proper specifications, sizes currents, concentrations etc so you can't say I didn't do it right.

[alancalverd]

How would you change in the drawing to represent what I did better?

Only you know what you did!

But I'm pretty sure it didn't involve measuring the voltage between two insulators that were connected together with a wire, and imagining that the result had anything to do with the content of the buckets.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Only you know what you did!

But somehow you know that it isn't represented by the drawing. Are you a clairvoyant?

But I'm pretty sure it didn't involve measuring the voltage between two insulators that were connected together with a wire, and imagining that the result had anything to do with the content of the buckets.

The voltmeter is on during the whole length of the experiment, including the zeroing event.
Different content of the buckets result in different voltage reading.
Different current through the liquids result in different voltage reading.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

if so, I'd like proper specifications, sizes currents, concentrations etc so you can't say I didn't do it right.

Now I'm done recording the experiment using 3 types of chloride salts, ie NaCl, KCl, and MgCl2. It will take some time to edit, add narrative and illustration, and then upload it to my YouTube channel. So please be patient, since I'm having a tight schedule in my work place. So little time so much to do.

Her are some observations during the experiment.
Even with the same solutions in both containers, and no electric current flowing through them, some voltage was shown. It disappeared when the cans were connected, but reappeared after they were disconnected.
Difference in volume of the liquids affects the voltage readings, even with no current.
Electrostatic charge build up on the liquids affects the voltage readings. It can occur when the liquid is poured into the container, or other handling related to triboelectricity.

To minimize variance, the solutions used in the experiment were set to have conductivity around 19 mS/cm, because the portable conductivity meter I used can't show any value above 20 mS/cm.

If you are too lazy to read the description two pages before, I don't really think you are diligent enough to carry out the experiment.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

For those who hasn't gotten where these three tables come from, it's based on following assumptions:
1. The formula to calculate the Lorentz force, which states that F = B.q.v is correct.
2. Magnetic field B is proportional to electric current in the wire.
3. Electric current in the wire depends on velocity difference between positive and negative particles in the wire. If they move at the same velocity relative to a reference, the current is zero.
4. Electric charge of the test particle is constant during the experiment.
5. The principle of relativity applies here, which implies that the value of velocity in the formula is determined by relative velocity between the test particle and the wire. No absolute reference is required. Their velocity relative to the laboratory is not relevant.
6. The values in the tables are obtained in the reference frame of the test particle.
7. For simplicity, it's assumed that all positive particles have uniform velocity. Negative particle has uniform velocity as well.

If you think that my conclusion is false, which assumptions do you think are the causes of that mistake?

We seem to have started with the same set of assumptions. But somehow we come to different conclusions. There must be some hidden assumptions that we don't agree with, which caused that difference. Let's try to find out what they are.