SELF

S.B. Karavashkin and O.N. Karavashkina

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? ;-)

[Harald]

Indeed, at that point, it looked like you understand it perfectly well. Now it looks like the meaning of "field lines inside enclosed area" is not understood by you.

position of secondary loop (just the case of our experimental study), the flux variation is tantamount to the vector variation. Have you another opinion? ;-)

[Harald]

Here a good understanding of what you mean may be important. If I understand you well, then yes, I do have a very different opinion!

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!

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.

[Harald]

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. :-(

To put the equation in another way, with V =voltage, S = surface and B' = average magnetic field inside the loop: V = S * dB'/dt .

In your fig.4 the secondary windings enclose about the same amount of flux, in fact it may be perfectly the same as the surface that the outer one has more than the inner one, contains about an equal amount of upward and downward flux.

Now please determine the direction of induced currents on the basis of standard representation and make sure, they have to be directed oppositely.

[Harald]

Again: No!

But you see, they are one-directed. Now try to close these lines of force. ;-)

[Harald]

And lines of force at a wire are independent of magnetic induction in the wire...

This is where I stop now, for as long as this is not cleared up, it is useless to discuss the other, strongly related points; and when it is cleared up, most other points will become clear.

Sincerely,

Harald

Our respond to Harald van Lintel

Dear Harald,

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:

"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"

I suggest to carry out a very simple experiment shown in Fig. 1.

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 turned 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 (1 - 2 %).

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?

>B' = average magnetic field inside the loop: V = S * dB'/dt .

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 to make sure? ;-)

Sergey.