Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!onodera-news!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!green.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,fj.sci.matter,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Dynamic magnetic field is open Date: 28 Dec 2003 14:35:26 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 197 Message-ID: References: <3fcc646c$1@epflnews.epfl.ch> <3bff5641.0312101230.708655fd@posting.google.com> <3fdf31a0$1@epflnews.epfl.ch> <3fe6d3cc$1@epflnews.epfl.ch> NNTP-Posting-Host: 195.177.112.246 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1072650927 300 127.0.0.1 (28 Dec 2003 22:35:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 22:35:27 +0000 (UTC) Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.sci.matter:33 "Harry" wrote in message news:<3fe6d3cc$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>... > Dear Sergey, > > After this I give up! > I showed you that your interpretation of the magnetic equations must be > wrong, and I claimed that your experiments in your paper are, as far as I > can see but after very careful examination, in agreement with standard > theory. You did not reply to that, but you proposed a new, simpler > experiment that would indeed distinguish between your theory and standard > theory. > I encouraged you to that experiment, and even how you can simplify it even > more, so you can do it completely in less than one day. > But I also pointed out why it is certain that you are wrong, because your > theory has the wrong scaling factor, it yields wrong dimensions! Again, you > did not answer on that. > > But now you claim that one of your other experiments is the same: > "Everything what you saw in that new experiment has been fully presented in > those which we stated in the paper. " > You know that I disagree, and obviously you did not believe that I had > carefully studied your experiments. > However, I did not discuss it in detail.. I do not think that your last > fig.2 changes anything. > For locating B, we must look at the magnetic flux. Almost all magnetic flux > goes through the metal. You have two magnetic circuits next to each other > with the flux going round in the same sense. As a result, the flux of the > left windings goes opposite through the central part as the flux in the > right windings: > > ^ > v ^ > v > ^ v ^ v > ^ < v ^ < v > > Your double probe-loop makes things complex. You measure in that central > part, the rest remaining equal, likely. In the central position you should > measure nothing, as everything is compensated, in each half loop the total > up flux is the same as the total down flux. It looks to me that you pick up > the potential from the currents due to the average vertical total fluxes, > which change when you move out of the central position. > For example, going with your frame to the left in my sketch, you will get a > net "up" flux in your left half loop and net "down" flux in the other part, > so that they add up to give a voltage between the pick-up points. > > Have a nice end of 2003! > > Harald > Dear Harald, Mysterious human soul! It happens, you can buy a lamb but don't want; it happens, you want to buy a lamb, but cannot. When I answer your questions, you delete my explanations and say, I don't answer. When I persuaded you, and you have admitted - yes, persuaded! - what makes you saying again, this all is none the less wrong, you are giving up to persuade me obstinate, and even that it were you who [Harald, 2003-12-22] I encouraged you to that experiment, and even how you can simplify it even more, so you can do it completely in less than one day. [Sergey] Of course, I understand, how unexpected is this what you saw in our experiments. And such steep turn from [Harald, 2003-12-02] In my opinion it's all wrong, horribly wrong. I urge you to withdraw your paper from Internet. [Sergey] to [Harald, 2003-12-10] 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? [Sergey] Undoubtedly, such transformation was not so easy for you. The more that your understanding yet doesn't reflect exactly the process I describe. Maybe, this is why you are so enigmatic and still are insistently trying to reduce our experiments to your averaged loops...! ;-) Only I cannot catch, to which experiments have you encouraged me if we have conducted them seven years ago in much more volume than we presented in the paper. On the contrary, because the educational level of West colleagues, regrettably, does not offer them to analyse the phenomena enough deeply, and deep explanation is immediately reduced to language difficulties or errors, we made one survey paper from three large. And only you, Bob and Anderson responded (if his reaction can be attributed as a respond). And Bill on alt.engineering.electrical also discussed ... my language. All my attempts to clear, what namely cannot he understand, remained without reply. ;-) And what strikes - when someone accuses me that I didn't answer, hiding under it the admission that I have proven. What's the cause of such behaviour?! Today it's me who's right, tomorrow it will be you, a day after someone else. This is just the development! Please re-read your phrase whole: [Harald, 2003-12-22] You did not reply to that, but you proposed a new, simpler experiment that would indeed distinguish between your theory and standard theory. [Sergey] and tell me, with your above abrupt transition from denial to admittance, to which part of this phrase have I to react? If I did not reply, how have you changed your opinion? If I did, why this first part of your phrase is here? Before representing you the experiment with two cores, I wrote you so: (Citation from my post to you of 2003-12-14) [Sergey] You have snipped all my explanations and make appearance as if there was nothing in my post except you retained. Well, I will not comment it, but in order to lift finally the question of flux of vector that you are imposing and to show you your statement erroneous and related to the conventional electromagnetic theory only in your mind: [Harald] 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" [Sergey] I suggest to carry out a very simple experiment shown in Fig. 1. (Uncitation) [Sergey] Doesn't it show you, I simply had no wish to dig into long fruitless discussion and lifted your question basically, having suggested the check experiment. Well, to what I didn't answer? ;-) Again, you are saying, [Harald, 2003-12-22] I encouraged you to that experiment, and even how you can simplify it even more, so you can do it completely in less than one day. But I also pointed out why it is certain that you are wrong, because your theory has the wrong scaling factor, it yields wrong dimensions! Again, you did not answer on that. [Sergey] I have re-read all your posts in this thread and couldn't find even a hint of this. Maybe, you were about and forgot? ;-) And my simplifications, as you called them, factually were not simplifications. However, doing not answering to my variant of extending a loop from gap, you are going on insisting on averaged fluxes. Or rather, now not averaged, but none the less determining the inversion of emf in the centre of gap: [Harald, 2003-12-22] I do not think that your last fig.2 changes anything. For locating B, we must look at the magnetic flux. Almost all magnetic flux goes through the metal. You have two magnetic circuits next to each other with the flux going round in the same sense. As a result, the flux of the left windings goes opposite through the central part as the flux in the right windings [Sergey] But I twice have drawn you the figure showing flux directions in the experiment. In the side rods of core the fluxes are one-side directed (in the figure - upwards). These fluxes are one-directed in the central rod! What have you to the right? And to the left? Believe me, I can understand noting from you post. What about I told you so long time? What explained? What drew? Where from your picture ^ > v ^ > v ^ v ^ v ^ < v ^ < v could appear? While I have shown you, inversion in the centre of gap does not depend on, is the loop single either compensative. If you are trying to explain our result in this way, please explain it on a single frame when it is extended from the gap - just what I asked you to explain in your previous post. ;-) Finally, I didn't understand, have you lifted the objections of your first post? ;-) Happy New Year to you! I wish you great happiness and success in your research and full agreement and understanding both in your family and with colleagues. Sergey