[sorincosofret (OP)]

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.

[lyner]

Read a book.

[Bored chemist]

My favorite joke in Sorin's latest offering is
"By comparison with electric force, the Lorenz force changes only the direction of a charged particle without any acceleration. "
Does anyone else find any bits of it particulalry amusing?

[lyner]

I thought we already established that he doesn't know about the difference between vectors and scalars.

[sorincosofret (OP)]

"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.

[Bored chemist]

It wasn't the literature that's the problem.
The sentence is still wrong.
Read Sophiecentaur's comment. Then go find out what it means.

[sorincosofret (OP)]

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 !

[lyner]

By comparison with electric force, the Lorenz force changes only the direction of a charged particle without changing its initial acceleration.

"its initial" acceleration is Zero (i.e. before the field is applied).
Once a uniform field is applied the acceleration is of constant modulus and its direction is always normal to the motion.
Your statement is meaningless. Do you know the definition of acceleration, sorin?
Simple slips add up to discredit you yet again.

[lyner]

Sorin.
It just struck me that you have opened up your 'War' on Science on too many fronts at once. Both Napoleon and Hitler failed for that reason; they over-stretched themselves and you are doing the same.
Rome, Persia, Greece, Great Britain too - they all did it and they have no Empires now.

[Bored chemist]

Sorin,
Since you don't seem to understand the fact, here's a reminder.
Velocity is a vector quantity- it has magnitude and direction. If you change either of those then you are producing an acceleration.

You can't change a direction without having an acceleration.


Nothing to do with literature or potency, just, as usual, you not knowing what you are on about.
Since you clearly don't understand the basics I can't be bothered to look at the details.

[sorincosofret (OP)]

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.

[Bikerman]

I think that this, and other, threads by this poster serve to highlight the absolutely crucial role of peer review in science.
It is clear to anyone familiar with the peer review process that the sort of 'speculative hypothesis' featured here, and in many other postings, would not get published in any journal of repute. It is also clear, to anyone familiar with basic physics, why this is the case.
There are thousands of numpties on the internet posting their own various numpty 'theories'. Some of them (as here) seem to put an inordinate amount of work into their delusions in order to make them sound plausible. Because the internet is essentially an anonymous forum for such views, then anyone can publish any old crap and, if they are sufficiently trenchant in their support and sufficiently articulate to con the majority, they can be taken seriously by many.

[Bored chemist]

Sorin,
The word is "knobless"
I'm a chemist BTW, I don't claim a high knowledge of  physics- just rather better than yours.

[lyner]

Sorin
I don't suppose you would demean yourself to do this but could you please state your definition of acceleration in terms that we can all recognise and understand?

[Bored chemist]

"So it is time to come with a experiment which prove this acceleration of a particle due to a Lorenz force. "
OK, here's one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sector_instrument

Next question please.

[sorincosofret (OP)]

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 ....

[Bored chemist]

"The Lorenz force and his characteristics is a banal subject learned by schoolboy at 15 years in Romania "
So why do you keep asking about it?
The example you asked for was "a experiment which prove this acceleration of a particle due to a Lorenz force"
I found one and you just decided to call me silly names.

Are you trying to get banned so you can tell yourself that "The establishment wouldn't listen to me" rather than have to admit you are just plain wrong?

[sorincosofret (OP)]

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.

 

[sorincosofret (OP)]

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...

[lyner]

sorin
Did you ever explain what you mean by acceleration? For a true Scientist, nothing should be too trivial to explain. Are you afraid to display your ignorance?