"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:<4017b337$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> "Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
> news:a42650fc.0401271440.2f442ce1@posting.google.com...
> > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:<400cefe7$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> SNIP
> > > > > >  >"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> > > > > >  >news:slrnbvraov.dan.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Sergey,
> > > In fact we were on a side subject, after I tried to make clear that
>  being
> > > open-minded is not the same as being a crackpot..
> > > Ampere's law is more complete than Lorentz', and seems to be not fully
> > > compatible with Maxwell's.
> > > Just when I expected Bilge to actually show me that all forces are
>  balanced
> > > due to something that I overlooked, he became silent.
> > > What is according to you the reaction of a current carrying wire to a
>  moving
> > > charge?
> > >
> > > Harald
> >
> >
> > Dear Harald, you really found in Bilge a person from whom you can
> > expect a reasonable answer! Bilge knows only refrain to a prayer
> > "Einstein Akbar!" ;-)
> 
> In fact Bilge often makes a real effort to explain things - according to his
> point of view of course - and in many cases I found that very helpful.
> 
> > I understand your wish to catch the dragoon's tail, but the tail is in
> > other side. You and me, we many times discussed this issue, and you
> > had not one case to make sure, you cannot make an independent step on
> > this way. Not because your knowledge is insufficient. Simply to make
> > this step is not so simple. One thing I understood, I have not to
> > delete our paper from site. And this is already good. ;-)
> 
> This paper I have not read, sorry. The other one, you have not reacted any
> time about the scaling problem as you gave me the impression that magnetic
> induction current is proportional to wire length instead of enclosed surface
> (~ L^2), while both engineering success and dimensional analysis show that
> it must be a L^2 law.

Dear Harald,

If you look at the diagram from our paper where we showed the
variation of emf of inductance across the section from each side of
primary winding, you will see that when we put the loop into the core,
the emf will be proportional to the distance between the parallel
wires of primary winding, i.e. delta l_1. With it the emf of induction
will also depend on the length of these parallel wires, delta l_2. So
the total emf at two opposite sides of secondary loop will be
proportional to

e*delta l_1*delta l_2=e*S.

For the second pair of parallel wires, we will have the same product,
so for the secondary loop the emf of inductance will be proportional
to the cross-section area of this loop. However this coincidence never
means that the phenomenology of process is such.

We can show it, considering the known phenomenology of interaction of
current in a wire with a magnetic field. If you take a loop with a
movable side, put this loop into a magnetic field and move this side,
then, according to the Lorentz equation, the emf will arise in the
loop. We can easily re-calculate this emf into the variation of this
loop's cross-section and even to reduce this calculation to the
Faraday equation of EM induction. But this does not mean that the
phenomenology of process is such. And you perfectly know, the Lorentz
equation has been derived for interaction of moving charge with
magnetic field, not for a loop. This is the answer, which you could
simply read in our paper, attentively analysing our diagrams.


> 
> > And as to Ampere's law, I already wrote you in my previous letter.
> 
> Yes, the question is if popular EM theory is complete.
> 

Of course, it is incomplete. You colleagues have omitted all our
conservation laws proven for dynamic fields. You refused to analyse
attentively my respond to the New year question from Leo. You refused
to analyse attentively our paper in which we compared the
characteristics of EM and acoustic transverse near fields. You refused
to accept my arguments against the photon theory from the view of
electromagnetism. Now you can read (again doing not analysing) our
paper on transformation of gradient of potential function in dynamic
fields. Well, why do you asking me? ;-)

> Harald

Sergey