SELF

Questions asked by Harald van Lintel

S.B. Karavashkin and O.N. Karavashkina

Dear Sergey,

I read your paper, but....I am very sorry to bring you bad news.In my opinion it's all wrong, horribly wrong. I urge you to withdraw your paper from Internet.

I have no problem with your introduction; also not with your equations and not even with your experiments.

But I noticed a big misunderstanding with the application of the equations.

In short:

1. 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 thetotal amount of change of field lines inside the enclosed area.

2. When you go from an infinitely small area loop to a closed wire that you measure at each end you change the configuration into something different from what you think. In fact you create a loop of which one part is that piece of wire and the rest is your measurement system that closes the loop.

All in all, as far as I can see you measured nothing unusual, some of your results I foresaw before reaching your data, and most or all other results are easy to explain.

I propose to discuss details by personal email.

Sincerely,

Harald

Our respond to Harald van Lintel

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. ;-)

Now in turn.

1. You are stating,

>total amount of change of field lines inside the enclosed area.

As far as I know, you always read attentively and could not disregard that when we described the standard representation, we emphasised this point too. Otherwise, why had we to put Fig. 3 into page 74 of our paper? ;-) The difference between vector B variation and variation of flux of vector is insufficient in case of stationary loop and unchanged position between loops, as at constant cross-section and position of secondary loop (just the case of our experimental study), the flux variation is tantamount to the vector variation. Have you another opinion? ;-)

Right away I would answer your next question which you did not ask: how much limited is the studied statement of problem? I can assure you, from the obtained results the most general corollaries follow. Simply we should take into account the known fact that the experiment is always carried out at the conditions at which the properties of studied phenomenon reveal in the most visual way. Just this stipulated the scheme of experimental techniques. With mutually moving loops or varied cross-section of loops in the course of experiment, there would always be present factors of variation of density, or cross-section, of flux which would actually blur the pattern, not allowing to conclude provably. By this reason we chose for the first experiment the construction of air transformer with the internal and external secondary windings. 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. Now please determine the direction of induced currents on the basis of standard representation and make sure, they have to be directed oppositely. But you see, they are one-directed. Now try to close these lines of force. ;-) Thus, the obvious results (as you write) are not so much obvious in the view of conventional formalism. True, here exists one more merely virtual possibility - to invert the vector of cross-section of secondary loops. However, if you try to do so, I will simply suggest you to conduct a set of experiments shown here in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Experiment with sequentially increasing cross-section of secondary loop (blue) from the enclosed into the primary loop (a) to the embracing it (d). The primary loop is shown in red.

You see in this figure, in each next experiment the cross-section of secondary loop some increases, gradually transiting from the enclosed loop to that embrasing. If you think these four steps not enough, you can increase the number of intermediate experiments. The main aim is, you would be able to conclude surely, when exactly the direction of vector of the loop cross-section changes. ;-) And I would like to notice, if you carry out all these experiments at the same time, you would obtain just the result as we obtained in our first experiment for all connected loops. If you are able, none the less, to reveal the moment when the secondary loop inverts, I will sent you a chocolate sweet. ;-)

Then I would suggest you to conduct an experiment with the secondary winding reeled up BETWEEN the turns of primary winding, as it is shown here in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Experiment with the air transformer made by reeling up the secondary winding (blue) between the turns of primary winding (red)

As you can see in this figure, if you think the force lines of magnetic field close (lilac circulation arrows), where the turns of secondary winding are located, the magnetic fields are subtracted, - consequently, emf will not be induced at all. But you know, this is not so, though the technique based on mutual subtracting of magnetic fields is quite standard. It is used, for example, to determine the resulting field of molecular magnets.

You see, the experiment described in our paper is far from being only, and everywhere we see one and the same problem - closed lines of force of induction. Open them - and everything takes its place. And you are saying, we showed nothing new in our experiments. Are you surely unbiased here?

This is just the aspect that you and other colleagues didn't want to see when I multiply suggested you: read and analyse the conservation laws for dynamic fields that we have proven and published for you. You all brushed aside, though I said, you can brush aside or take offence, but the nature is such as it is. Ignoring its regularities, you would stop to be physicists, nothing more.

Thus, you could expect the result in view of practice, not in view of existing phenomenology. Again, when the theses have been proven and the points made, everything is so simple and obvious, but by some reason I didn't see such approaches before neither from you nor from others. You see, this undoubtedly is a discovery that essentially changes the very idea of magnetic fields. Even when I said you, the heart of interaction in magnetic field has not been taken into account finally, you also brushed aside (or rather, you left my words without answering). If now you are saying, nothing new in it, would you tell us, what will be the next step in cognition of this regularity? I will send you a second sweet! ;-)

Especially I would like to touch the force lines within the selected region. As is known, in all field diagrams you draw the distribution of momentary force lines of the field. If you said, the matter is only in changing density of lines of force, how can you understand the density of these lines when the flux changes direction? You know, flux changes not only its value but direction too, does not it? ;-)

2. Your second question is more interesting, though we much enlightened it in our paper. An attempt to represent the taps from probe in the gap as the continuation of loop is quite natural and we though of it when developed the technique of second experiment. Having read the technique of second experiment in the item 2.2, page 79, you should draw your attention to the features about which we said in that item. First, as you can see from Fig. 11, out of region of measurement, the field is localised at the core and in both rods has the same direction of momentary field of vector B. Second and the main, the taps of frame shown in Fig. 12 of paper, page 79, embrace both lateral rods of the core and are placed quite far from them. You can easily make sure from the construction shown in Fig. 3 here that the induction emf in taps is directed oppositely - this means, it is subtracted!

Fig. 3. General appearance of measuring frame in the gap of core

Thereupon we measure only emf that is induced in the central rod of frame.

Now let us consider, how the loop transforms from round to ellipsoidal shape. When you are stating,

>from what you think.

you are a bit inexact. If the field was localised in some region of space - and just this stipulated the transition from compressed loop in Fig. 9 of paper to the single wire in Fig. 10 in the same page 78, - then the taps are located out of the region of field. Have you paid no attention to this point? You have an opportunity to do so. ;-) If we add to it a compensation measuring frame, nothing to say of closed loop.

You can otherwise make sure in what I'm saying. It would be enough to change the frame a little, adding to it the second central wire, which we should make movable, as opposite to the first, as it is shown in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. Circuit with the two-path central conductor

In this circuit, if in the beginning of experiment both conductors are equally distanced from the axis of gap, then, really, total emf will be zero. This additionally checks the fact that the taps have no effect on the measurement. When we move the movable conductor towards immovable, according to conventional phenomenology, the inductive emf cannot appear, as we still measure the difference in voltage between the opposite points of closed loop. Moreover, the cross-section between the conductors diminishes. But really emf will appear and grow with diminished distance between conductors, because symmetry of location of conductors as to the axis of gap will be disturbed the more the closer will they be located to each other. True, the value of this emf will be first very small, as each rod is short-circuited to the second rod, and emf in them directed oppositely. But we can increase it, making the conductors of high-Ohm material - for example, of constantan, with a small cross-section. This will not change the difference between the phenomenologies of expected effects, but measurements will become well easier. But even out of it, even if you take conductors of copper, in transition of movable conductor through the gap axis the total emf will abruptly increase, as emfs in the arms will be already one-directed, only will have different amplitudes. We simply have to account that, because the conductors are mutually closed, emf will grow nonlinearly with decreasing distance between the conductors. When the conductors coincide, emf will be maximal! At minimal cross-section of loop, from the viewpoint of conventional phenomenology! And you are saying, flux of vector! Which flux of vector will be in coincidence of conductors?

So I still see not a least reason to withdraw our paper or to pass to an underground discussion. We already had an underground discussion, and you disappeared just at the moment when understood me right. You would first induce in correspondence with the laws of nature, not towards the salvage of rotten dogmata. It would be more useful and productive. I told you, but you did not believe…

Regards,

Sergey.