"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:<3fdf31a0$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> 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.

I'm pleased much, this was the aim of my efforts. ;-)

> 
> > > > 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!

Why, figures that you liked have commented. I especially choose the
circuits showing that just the average field is irrelevant. Further I
will broaden this theme a little.

> 
> Instead of explaining your understanding on what Faraday claimed, you now
> replied:
> 
> > I suggest to carry out a very simple experiment.

Right. Because namely in this experiment lies the answer to your
question and my understanding of Faraday.

> 
> [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.

See, Harald, for complete understanding of induction processes we have
to pass a definite way. This what you read in our paper shows the
entrance into the labyrinth but not the final output. Faraday whose
heritage were experiments, not formulas, worked with loops and coils,
so he described them. Maxwell and then hertz have formalised Faraday's
experiments and fixed in formulas his experimental results. When you
read our paper, you could see, we paid much attention just to, how to
avoid loops, to see, how the induction law transforms in absence of
loop. This was the main goal. Simply you shouldn't expect everything
at once from one paper, then that what we have done will be more
clear. ;-)

> 
> > > 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.

You see, Harald, numerical coincidence of results is stipulated by
theorems, and the main, by vector algebra transforms, but electron of
secondary loop cannot know what occurs out of particular physical
point where it is located. When you are saying of the flux of vector
crossing the loop, you conventionally do not ponder that the very idea
of force line means the tangent to the direction of force action or to
the field strength at PARTICULAR point. Usually, when we consider the
flux of vector, we rarely make this flux inhomogeneous in
cross-section. In this way we close the door to comprehend the
phenomenon. This is why in the circuits of my previous message I
formed just inhomogeneous field in the loop. You clearly see from it
that, when averaging the flux of vector across the section, you lose
the essence of processes of induction interaction. But if you do not
average, then a number of questions arise which we study in our paper.

You are right, there is no new theory in our paper. But who prevents
us to create a team, to appeal for funding and to advance step by step
into the depths of labyrinth? Is not it a standard practice in
scientific circles? ;-)


> 
> 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

Everything what you saw in that new experiment has been fully
presented in those which we stated in the paper. To show it, I suggest
to refine a little the experiment from my previous post. Let us extend
the loop from the gap, in any core. Factually this will be the same as
in second and third experiments of paper. With it the rod of loop in
the gap will be in the field shown in figure that you can see at

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/b/harry3/harry3.html

Fig. 1

In this figure you see the cross-section of rod of loop (red circle)
in two extreme locations. You see that during the displacement the
direction of instantaneous magnetic field in the gap does not change.
Only the frame comes out of the gap. And during going out of gap, the
direction of instantaneous flux of vector B that crosses the
cross-section of frame also will not change, changes only the absolute
value of your dear "average flux". Thus, on whatever variation of
standard formalism would you rely, you will not get the inversion of
flux with the loop coming out of gap. At the same time the
experimental results will show you the same inversion of emf at the
centre of gap as in the second experiment of paper. This means, not
everything in the paper is so much expectable? ;-) Simply you would
analyse these results deeper, in particular the condition of
compensation of parasitic emfs in the loop. Instead to do so, you
snipped the substantiation from my before-last post with Fig. 3 as
irrelevant. I'm inserting this figure again.

Fig. 3 from the previous post

In this figure you can see the frame just compensative and that it
allows to measure just the inductance in the rod, not in the loop.
Though in the paper we showed, it is unnecessary to apply the
compensative frame. Simply we have to fulfil few conditions (this is
what I'm adding now). The first condition has been indicated in the
paper - this is localisation of magnetic field. Second condition is
visual from the experiment of my previous post which puzzled you
&#61485; this is the location of taps as far as possible from the rod
of core. The compensative construction of frame only provides the
reliability of measurement but is not necessary if these conditions
have been fulfilled. You have skipped this all, and now you are
saying, you don't understand. Naturally. This is just about what I'm
tired to tell in the newsgroups. Take any question and analyse it
namely as it is. Try to turn this toy, not confining yourself to the
edges given by conventional conceptions. Try to get to know, what will
occur if you change the conditions of experiment. Your eyes will get
open.

In order to advance more fruitfully in understanding, we need a funded
project. This is not a request, and I don't mean a least to insist,
only I already told you this simple thing and now recall by the way.
Then you could not solve the problem and now you cannot comprehend the
input to this labyrinth that leads just to the problem which you did
not solve. These are all features. In reality this all is very simple.
;-)

Kind regards,

Sergey.