0 Members and 27 Guests are viewing this topic.
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.
At a guess you had some arrangement of reagents and electrodes so that the set-up became slightly voltaic (I think another term often used is "galvanic" rather than "voltaic").
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 26/01/2024 05:05:01Here'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. By looking at how simple this device is, it's quite surprising that past scientists failed to demonstrate the relationship between magnetism, electricity, and gravity. But if we compare to how simple the Foucault pendulum is, and how it escaped from the imagination of geniuses like Galileo and Newton, this situation might be more understandable. Everyone has their own blind spots. It took me more than 25 years to make it happen.
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.
Quote from: alancalverd on 10/02/2024 12:28:14If 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.
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
the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass.
In my preliminary experiment, I used two polypropylene boxes designed for microwave oven. The volume is stated at 750 mL. At the bottom, the size is around 14x9 cm, while at the top, it's around 16x11 cm. The height is 5.5 cm.
[a reference, not necessarily the best: https://van.physics.illinois.edu/ask/listing/24631 ]Hi I would like to know what would happen in a deep (think kilometres here), still column of salty water at constant temperature. Specifically, I'd like to know if the salt molecules would tend to sink to the bottom making the salinity at depth greater than at the surface, and if so, what the expression describing this is.- Martin Williams (age 71)Wirral
I'm a bit lost now, sorry. I've gone back through several pages looking for the statement of the hypothesis but didn't really find it. Is there a post number for that?
My suspicion to the fundamentality of magnetic field came up when I first learned about magnetic field and how it interact with charged particles. First, B field around a current carrying wire is described by the Biot?Savart law, which involve a cross product between vector line element of the wire and a unit vector in the direction of the distance between the location of the line element and the location where the magnetic field is calculated.But then the calculation of the magnetic force to a test particle involve a cross product between the B field and the instantaneous velocity of the test particle using Lorentz force law. The final resulting force from those two cross products would then be a push or pull.My suspicion got stronger when I learned about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox.and A field https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_vector_potential
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 28/01/2024 17:18:27The voltage shown in the Voltmeter of the experiment must be generated from these mass flow difference of the ions, considering that other factors are equally applied to both containers. But some factors may effectively reduce the voltage, such as adhesion, cohesion, molecular dipole, etc. The next step in to explain the experimental results theoretically, is constructing equation to calculate electrodynamic force exerted to a test particle by a moving charged particle. The result might be similar to Biot-Savart's law, but instead of continuous integration with integral symbol, the new equation should use discrete summation with Sigma symbol. The new equation should also incorporate some well known principles in physics, such as preservation of momentum and angular momentum.
The voltage shown in the Voltmeter of the experiment must be generated from these mass flow difference of the ions, considering that other factors are equally applied to both containers. But some factors may effectively reduce the voltage, such as adhesion, cohesion, molecular dipole, etc.
IntroductionAccording to classical electrodynamics, electric and magnetic fields (E and B) store linear momentum, which mustbe included if the total momentum of a system is to be conserved. Specifically, the electromagnetic momentum per unit volume isg = ε (E x B)as first proposed by Poynting (Refs. 30?32). Field momentum is most dramatically demonstrated in the laboratory by the pressure of light on an absorbing or reflecting surface.But the notion that fields carry momentum leads to several intriguing problems, some of which are not entirely resolved after more than a century of debate.For over a century a debate has raged: which expression is right? Or are they perhaps both right, and simply describe different things? How can the question be settled, theoretically and experimentally? Although many distinguished authors claim to have resolved the issue, the dispute continues to this day.In particular, the electromagnetic momentum of a stationary point charge q, in a magnetic field represented by the vector potential A, isp = qA This suggests that A can be interpreted as ?potential momentum? per unit charge, just as V is potential energy per unit charge. The association between momentum and vector potential goes back to Maxwell, who called A ?electromagnetic momentum? (Ref. 41; p. 481) and later ?electrokinetic momentum? (Ref. 10; Art. 590), and Thomson (Ref. 21). But the idea did not catch on; any physical interpretation of A was disparaged by Heaviside and Hertz (Refs. 34 and 36), who regarded A as a purely mathematical device. So generations of teachers were left with no good answer to their students? persistent question: ?What does the vector potential represent, physically?? Few were satisfied by the safe but unilluminating response, ?It is that function whose curl is B? (Ref. 39). From time to time the connection to momentum was rediscovered [by Calkin (Ref. 35), for example], but it was not widely recognized until Konopinski?s pivotal paper (Ref. 40). Konopinski was apparently unaware of the historical background, which was supplied by Gingras (Ref. 37).
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/07/2016 13:47:55Here 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.vWhere 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 4v- -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 0The 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 4v- -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 4The 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 4v- -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 12 200 16 9 4 1 0 1 4 9 161 20 12 6 2 0 0 2 6 122 24 15 8 3 0 -1 0 3 83 28 18 10 4 0 -2 -2 0 44 32 21 12 5 0 -3 -4 -3 0
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.
Too many errors to list, alas. We pass this way but once.
This video is an answer to a question that was lost in my brain for over ten years. Magnetic fields do work?unless you are working inside a classical electrodynamics theory that isn?t aware of the concept of intrinsic quantum mechanical spin. Which is a very odd choice! But that?s just my opinion, man.
It's often said that "magnetic force cannot do work." This video is my challenge to this long-taught physics rule.
This is a grey area. I'm a bit concerned that posting links to your own You Tube channel is actually a violation of the Acceptable Usage Policy ( https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.msg99452#msg99452 ).Section 5 of the AUPThe site is not for the promotion of business interests, or other personal ventures. The only exception to this is where the advertisement is supplied by the owners of the forum to further their own business interests.
Now we will show the preparation for electrodynamic balance experiment. This video is intended to help anyone who wants to replicate the experiment to make sure its repeatability. I found that merging this with the experiment itself will produce a huge video which is harder for me to handle.