[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

Let us consider some experiments. We place a stiff copper wire on a table. Parts of its length don’t touch the table. Above a wire section that does not touch the table we hold a strong cylindrical magnet with its plus-pole down (N-pole), so that the wire lies exactly under the middle of the magnet. Then we connect a new battery to the ends of the wire so that the plus-pole is closer to us and the minus-pole further away from us. At the moment of connection we will notice that the wire makes a strong deflection to the left and up. As soon as we turn the magnet over and repeat the same, the wire will make a strong deflection to the right and up. If we hold the magnet again with the positive pole down, now not directly over the wire, but left over it, however still close to it, we will notice that the wire after connecting to the battery makes a jerky movement to the right and down. How is this explained? In the first variant, the permanent magnet “blows” down; the magnetic wind in and around the wire blows clockwise spirally from the plus to the minus-pole of the battery; it blows down on the right of the wire, up on the left of it; on the right of the wire both magnetic winds coincide (the effect intensifies), and on the left of the wire they collide (the effect weakens); the wire moves to where the effect only intensifies, namely to the maximum, and that is to the left and up. In the third variant, in which both winds only collide, the wire deflects to where the adverse effect is maximally attenuated or quite ceased, namely to the right and down.

conductor in non-homogeneous field.png (13.95 kB . 542x252 - viewed 1164 times)

What will happen if we place a second identical magnet below the first? The upper magnet will pull the conductor to the left and up, while the lower magnet to the left and down. The resultant force will be to the left, perpendicular to the magnetic lines of force (figure below).

conductor in homogeneous field.png (6.26 kB . 310x366 - viewed 1142 times)

But this applies only if the conductor is placed exactly in the middle between the magnets and if the magnetic field is homogeneous. What is a homogeneous magnetic field? Please look at the drawing below (figure a):

homogeneous magnetic field.jpg (32.46 kB . 550x400 - viewed 1150 times)

The magnetic field of the magnet is weaker at a greater distance from the magnet’s pole. At a greater distance than 'd', we could say that the strength of the magnetic field is practically zero. The weakening of the strength is symbolically represented by the different shades of gray.

The weakening is also symbolically represented by the red and the blue triangle in the figure (b). If the two identical magnets are brought at the distance ‘d’ (or lesser than ‘d’) without allowing them to come together, then in the interspace between them there is a homogeneous magnetic field because the two fields complement each other. This means that the strength of the magnetic field is the same in every point of the interspace (figure c).

The magnetic field is homogeneous in terms of strength, but it is not homogeneous in terms of polarity. The Plus and the Minus retain their character just as before the bringing of the magnets close to each other.

So, the Fleming’s left hand rule is valid only in one particular case, that is, when the conductor is placed exactly in the middle between the magnets. When a rule is valid only in one particular case, then it can be no rule at all. Therefore the Fleming’s left hand rule should go to the trash heap of the history.

Consider also whether this formula about the so-called Lorentz force is true:
F = qE + qv x B

[Bored chemist]

"Is the Fleming's left hand rule valid?"
Yes, it is.

How is this explained?

Poor experimental technique?

In the first variant, the permanent magnet “blows” down;

Your fanciful idea blows.
It looks as if you still haven't found out what the magnetic field near the end of a magnet actually looks like.


You have a record of posting stuff that's wrong, and being taken apart for it.

Why do you continue to post nonsense?
Do you enjoy looking foolish?

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

You have a record of being thirteen years in this forum and have never started a single topic on your own.
What a knowledge!
I am impressed.

[alancalverd]

Every piece of electrical machinery that works, does so because Fleming's Rules are universal. That's an awful lot of experimental evidence.

 

[Bored chemist]

You have a record of being thirteen years in this forum and have never started a single topic on your own.
What a knowledge!
I am impressed.

I am impressive in many ways.
I see you have started quite a number of threads in which you have made absurd statements and claims.

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

Poor experimental technique?

I have read that you are a scientist.
Why don't you repeat the experiments with your advanced technique?

[Bored chemist]

Poor experimental technique?

I have read that you are a scientist.
Why don't you repeat the experiments with your advanced technique?

Well, partly because I'm lazy, but mainly because I know it would be pointless.
The laws of electromagnetism have been verified a billion times.


Part of the reason you don't understand what happens is that you don't learn.
We established here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78772.msg594675#msg594675
that you didn't draw the magnetic field at the end of a magnet correctly.
Why are you doing it again.

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

Every piece of electrical machinery that works, does so because Fleming's Rules are universal. That's an awful lot of experimental evidence.

Concerning the electrical machinery, please comment on this thread

Is the explanation of working principle of synchronous generator and motor true?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78617.0

where I assert that the explanation of the working principle of synchronous generators and motors is wrong.

[Bored chemist]

I already commented on an essentially identical thread.
You didn't respond.
You might want to try again.

TLDR
Please explain how things actually work.
All the designs are based on the idea that the physics is correct.
If the physics is wrong, how does the design work?

[Mitko Gorgiev (OP)]

Please explain how things actually work.
All the designs are based on the idea that the physics is correct.
If the physics is wrong, how does the design work?

In the cited thread:
Is the explanation of working principle of synchronous generator and motor true?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78617.0

I explain how things work and it is not in line with the contemporary explanation.
But you don't have the guts to reply on that thread.
Nobody actually does.
There is not even one reply yet.

You can do nothing against the truth. But you will need a lot of time to understand that.

[Bored chemist]

I explain how things work and it is not in line with the contemporary explanation.
But you don't have the guts to reply on that thread.
Nobody actually does.
There is not even one reply yet.

It's not a matter of guts.
It's just that we recognise that there's no point.
Still, if it makes you feel better...
...There is now a reply redirecting people to the earlier thread where we show that you don't make much sense.

[Bored chemist]

You can do nothing against the truth.

None of us is arguing against "the truth",
It's just that you  have got all excited about a badly drawn illustration in some old book.
Nobody else cares.