See below; I intertwine some of your comments with mine.

"Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:a42650fc.0312141522.1bcae46a@posting.google.com...
> harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch (Harry) wrote in message
news:<3bff5641.0312101230.708655fd@posting.google.com>...
> > 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:

Nice picture! And this one is very clear, even without 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. ;-)

No, not even in two postings I was able to communicate to you what the
problem is...
despite that in my comments I SNIPPED away most of the thigns that are
irrelevant to my objection!
In order to keep it compact, I will again remove most of what is not
necessary or even confusing, so that the emphasis will be right

> > > 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.
SNIP

> > 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. :-(

-> You did not comment on that; but it is perhaps the main point!

Instead of explaining your understanding on what Faraday claimed, you now
replied:

> I suggest to carry out a very simple experiment.

[see further]

Although it may be enlightening to know what really happens, it will in
principle not help to solve the question about what the law of Faraday (I
think it was him) predicts! But in practice it may be useful, in another
way.

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

> Thus, in both cases the cross-section of flux going through
> the secondary circuit is the same and this flux will average (your
> personal invention) equally across the section, isn't it just your
> statement?.

Again, your comment is as part of an experiment to perform, and not about
the theory. But you nearly correctly understood me:
My "personal invention" about the meaning of a surface integral is that it
gives you the total (normal) flux that is enclosed by the loop -done by
multiplying the local B in the area with the dx and dy - and that is the
same as the average (normal) B times the surface inside the loop.

SNIP

> I suggest to carry out a very simple experiment shown in Fig. 1which
> you can see with this text at
>
> http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/b/harry2/harry2.html
>
> Fig. 1

> Take two cores of the same material and assemble them so that their
> cross-sections be equal but as if turned perpendicularly relatively
> each other. On these cores, reel up the windings with equal number of
> turns of wire having the same diameter. The width of gap is also the
> same in both cores, and one source serves for both. Thus, the only
> difference between them will be that one plane of cross-section is
> turrned as to another. To check the cores identity, we can measure
> their inductance. If we made this all carefully, it has to be in
> limits of very small error.
>
> Let us also make a frame WITHOUT compensation (usual loop with large
> perimeter) so that its size was much more than the size of
> cross-section of loop. Insert the frame into the gaps of cores so that
> in both cases its rod in the gap was exactly at the interior boundary
> of gap. Thus, in both cases the cross-section of flux going through
> the secondary circuit is the same and this flux will average (your
> personal invention) equally across the section, isn't it just your
> statement?

> I would like to notice here, I'm intentionally saying of a large size
> of frame, as in this case the difference in average across the
> cross-section of gap will be very, very negligible.
>
> Now let us experiment. You already have guessed, in this circuit, with
> the frame having constant cross-section, being immovable relatively
> core and at constant cross-section of gap, you have to yield the
> inductive emf the same in both gaps, and my emf has to dependent on
> ratio between the long and short sides of gap. To lift all additional
> doubts because of dispersion, let us make this ratio considerable -
> for example, 1/3 or 1/4. So, even with all your distrust, the
> difference between our results will be trustworthy sufficient.
>
> Are you ready to check it and make sure? ;-)

Now, here is again the confusion between "you" and "my": I don't have my own
theory.
I thought that the purpose of your paper was to compare two theories in
practice. In your paper you claimed that the test results are not according
to the standard theory, while I noticed nothing different from expectation.
And you did not directly reply to that.
However, in your newly proposed experiment, clearly you predict something
else than the books: You claim that the induced voltage is not determined by
the amount of enclosed flux, but by the amount of magnetic field on the
wire, and you propose the new experiment to decide.
Am I right?

I think it's a good idea, and your set-up looks OK to me. You can simplify
the experiment by only using the second configuration, and move the loop
along the air gap, starting from outside. In standard theory, the voltage
should increase until you enclose all flux, after which it should be
constant; while in your theory, it should remain constant until you enclose
all flux, after which it should drop. Am I right?

Nevertheless, it would be extremely surprising if you are right: not only
*someone* would have noticed the above effects by now. Worse, doubling the
circumference of a loop in a homogenous field is expected to result in 4
times as much voltage, while according to your hypothesis it results in only
twice as much voltage (if I am wrong about your prediction, please
elaborate). I think that such a thing is impossible to "miss"!

All the best,

Harald