"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:<402caea7$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>...
> "Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
> news:a42650fc.0402051410.7b4995bc@posting.google.com...
> > "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.
> 
> Dear Sergey, thanks for finally givng me a first reply on this point!
> Indeed, I had not understood that you assume an emf that increases with the
> distance between the wire elements...
> Honestly, I do not grasp how it can be possible!

Dear Harald,

I'm glad that you something understood. However, by our previous
discussions, this all dies at some premature stages of your
understanding and transforms into your associations in the most
unexpected way. When I wrote you that emf grows, I referred you to the
diagram in which we showed that the value of emf induced in a single
wire almost linearly depends on distance from the side of primary
wire. See again the diagram 21, left:

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/b/b85/b85.html

Red line means the resulting emf induced dependently on the location
of single wire in the cross-section of gap. You see, in this figure,
right, the emf is conventionally positive, and left - conventionally
negative (the phase between them is 180 degrees).

If you take two wires at different distances from that first, in them
will naturally induce the emfs different both in value and phase. If
both wires were located in one half of gap, the emfs will be in phase.
If you connect these two wires into a loop, the current will enter
this loop through one wire and leave through another. So the emfs in
the loop will be oppositely in series. If both wires were located in
one half of gap, the emfs will subtract. If in different halves, they
will add, because the emfs are opposite-in-phase. As you can see,
therethrough at the loop terminals there will be the difference of two
emfs, and the value of this difference will be the more the longer
distance between the secondary wires, as with the distance from each
of sides of the primary loop, the value of induced emf falls.

Well, this is far from being all, and even not all of principal. You
can take a curious glance at the animation for our future paper which
shows how the scalar potential of dynamic dipole changes:

http://selftrans.narod.ru/agfig6.gif

Hopefully, you will like it. ;-)

Regards,

Sergey


> 
> > 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? ;-)
> 
> I was defending your stand of incompleteness to others. With success it
> seems, as nobody provided the field that is required in standard theory for
> the longitudinal reaction force in the example that I gave.
> 
> Harald