selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0312091449.f8008c1@posting.google.com>...
> "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:<3fcc646c$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
SNIP
> Dear Harald,
> 
> Some time ago I explained you, I have the internet access twice a
> week. Once I can take your post, and another time I can load my reply.
> So please have a patience and find my respond here
> 
> http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/b/harry/harry.html
> 
> with figures, or read here as a simple text:
> 
> 
> Dear Harald,
> 
> Unfortunately, I still don't see the reasons to be upset, neither to
> withdraw this paper from the web. You are saying yourself,
> 
> >I have no problem with your introduction; also not with your
>  equations and
> >not even with your experiments.
> 
> Is not it principal, as from it all other follows. ;-)
> 
> Now in turn.
> 
> 1. You are stating,
> 
> >The induction according to standard theory is not related to the
>  change
> >of B vector at the wire, but to the change of enclosed flux, that is,
>  to the
> >total amount of change of field lines inside the enclosed area.
> 
> As far as I know, you always read attentively and could not disregard
> that when we described the standard representation, we emphasised this
> point too. Otherwise, why had we to put Fig. 3 into page 74 of our
> paper? ;-) 

Indeed, at that point, it looked like you understand it perfecly well.
Now it looks like the meaning of "field lines inside enclosed area" is
not understood by you.

> The difference between vector B variation and variation of
> flux of vector is insufficient in case of stationary loop and
> unchanged position between loops, as at constant cross-section and
> position of secondary loop (just the case of our experimental study),
> the flux variation is tantamount to the vector variation. Have you
> another opinion? ;-)

Here a good understanding of what you mean may be important. If I
understand you well, then yes, I do have a very different opinion!

The phrase in your paper that I do understand for sure:
"Thus, if the conventional treatment of induction is true, the phase
shift between the ... interior and exterior secondary loops has to be
equal to 180 degrees."

That is where I got a sick feeling in my stomach, for that is
certainly not the case, as set out in fig.3, the phase shift must be 0
degrees!

SNIP
> If you look at Fig. 4 of the paper, page 75, where
> we showed the lines of force of magnetic field in standard
> representation, you will see, for the internal winding the flux is
> directed upwards, and for external winding - downwards the figure. 

Again, NO! The direction of the lines of force is not equal to the
direction of the net enclosed flux. In fact it was useful in a way to
be confronted with it in this way, as more clearly than in the past I
realise how non-local the effect is - quite magical without an ether
theory.
To say it in plain English: in conventional electromagnetic theory,
the local magnetic field vector change is irrelevant for the induced
current.
What counts is the average magnetic field inside the loop, and not the
magnetic field at the wire.

It very much looks like you confused a line integral with a surface
integral. :-(

To put the equation in another way, with V =voltage, S = surface and
B' = average magnetic field inside the loop: V = S * dB'/dt .

In your fig.4 the secondary windings enclose about the same amount of
flux, in fact it may be perfectly the same as the surface that the
outer one has more than the inner one, contains about an equal amount
of upward and downward flux.

> Now
> please determine the direction of induced currents on the basis of
> standard representation and make sure, they have to be directed
> oppositely. 

Again: No!

> But you see, they are one-directed. Now try to close these
> lines of force. ;-) 

And lines of force at a wire are independent of magnetic induction in
the wire...

This is where I stop now, for as long as this is not cleared up, it is
useless to discuss the other, strongly related points; and when it is
cleared up, most other points will become clear.

Sincerely,

Harald