SELF |
Additional explanations for Harald van Lintel |
S.B. Karavashkin and O.N. Karavashkina |
|
|
|
SELF |
Additional explanations for Harald van Lintel |
S.B. Karavashkin and O.N. Karavashkina |
|
|
|
Phrases by Harald are coloured in green phrases from previous posts are denoted with signs ">", and coloured in olive Phrases by Sergey are coloured in red phrases from previous posts are denoted with signs ">", and coloured in lilac
|
See below; I intertwine some of your comments with mine. "Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.0312141522.1bcae46a@posting.google.com... > harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch (Harry) wrote in message news:<3bff5641.0312101230.708655fd@posting.google.com>... > > selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0312091449.f8008c1@posting.google.com>... > > > "Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:<3fcc646c$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>... SNIP> > > Dear Harald, > > > > > > Some time ago I explained you, I have the internet access twice a > > > week. Once I can take your post, and another time I can load my reply. > > > So please have a patience and find my respond here > > > > > > http://selftrans.narod.ru/v3_1/b/harry/harry.html> > > > > > with figures, or read here as a simple text: Nice picture! And this one is very clear, even without text. I'm pleased much, this was the aim of my efforts. ;-) > > > 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. ;-) No, not even in two postings I was able to communicate to you what the problem is... despite that in my comments I SNIPPED away most of the thigns that are irrelevant to my objection! In order to keep it compact, I will again remove most of what is not necessary or even confusing, so that the emphasis will be right > > > Now in turn. > > > > > > 1. You are stating, > > > > > > >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 the > > > >total amount of change of field lines inside the enclosed area. SNIP > > 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! > > > > SNIP > > > 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. > > > > 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. :-( [New phrase] -> You did not comment on that; but it is perhaps the main point! Why, figures that you liked have commented. I especially choose the circuits showing that just the average field is irrelevant. Further I will broaden this theme a little.Instead of explaining your understanding on what Faraday claimed, you now replied:> I suggest to carry out a very simple experiment. [New phrase] Right. Because namely in this experiment lies the answer to your question and my understanding of Faraday. [see further] Although it may be enlightening to know what really happens, it will in principle not help to solve the question about what the law of Faraday (I think it was him) predicts! But in practice it may be useful, in another way.See, Harald, for complete understanding of induction processes we have to pass a definite way. This what you read in our paper shows the entrance into the labyrinth but not the final output. Faraday whose heritage were experiments, not formulas, worked with loops and coils, so he described them. Maxwell and then hertz have formalised Faraday's experiments and fixed in formulas his experimental results. When you read our paper, you could see, we paid much attention just to, how to avoid loops, to see, how the induction law transforms in absence of loop. This was the main goal. Simply you shouldn't expect everything at once from one paper, then that what we have done will be more clear. ;-) > > To put the equation in another way, with V =voltage, S = surface and > > B' = average magnetic field inside the loop: V = S * dB'/dt .> 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?. Again, your comment is as part of an experiment to perform, and not about the theory. But you nearly correctly understood me: My "personal invention" about the meaning of a surface integral is that it gives you the total (normal) flux that is enclosed by the loop -done by multiplying the local B in the area with the dx and dy - and that is the same as the average (normal) B times the surface inside the loop.You see, Harald, numerical coincidence of results is stipulated by theorems, and the main, by vector algebra transforms, but electron of secondary loop cannot know what occurs out of particular physical point where it is located. When you are saying of the flux of vector crossing the loop, you conventionally do not ponder that the very idea of force line means the tangent to the direction of force action or to the field strength at PARTICULAR point. Usually, when we consider the flux of vector, we rarely make this flux inhomogeneous in cross-section. In this way we close the door to comprehend the phenomenon. This is why in the circuits of my previous message I formed just inhomogeneous field in the loop. You clearly see from it that, when averaging the flux of vector across the section, you lose the essence of processes of induction interaction. But if you do not average, then a number of questions arise which we study in our paper. You are right, there is no new theory in our paper. But who prevents us to create a team, to appeal for funding and to advance step by step into the depths of labyrinth? Is not it a standard practice in scientific circles? ;-) SNIP > 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 > turrned 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. > > 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? > 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 make sure? ;-) Now, here is again the confusion between "you" and "my": I don't have my own theory. I thought that the purpose of your paper was to compare two theories in practice. In your paper you claimed that the test results are not according to the standard theory, while I noticed nothing different from expectation. And you did not directly reply to that. 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?I think it's a good idea, and your set-up looks OK to me. You can simplify the experiment by only using the second configuration, and move the loop along the air gap, starting from outside. In standard theory, the voltage should increase until you enclose all flux, after which it should be constant; while in your theory, it should remain constant until you enclose all flux, after which it should drop. Am I right?Nevertheless, it would be extremely surprising if you are right: not only *someone* would have noticed the above effects by now. Worse, doubling the circumference of a loop in a homogenous field is expected to result in 4 times as much voltage, while according to your hypothesis it results in only twice as much voltage (if I am wrong about your prediction, please elaborate). I think that such a thing is impossible to "miss"!All the best, Harald Everything what you saw in that new experiment has been fully presented in those which we stated in the paper. To show it, I suggest to refine a little the experiment from my previous post. Let us extend the loop from the gap, in any core. Factually this will be the same as in second and third experiments of paper. With it the rod of loop in the gap will be in the field shown in figure below.
|
|
Fig. 1. |
| In this figure you see the cross-section
of rod of loop (red circle) in two extreme locations. You see that during the displacement
the direction of instantaneous magnetic field in the gap does not change. Only the frame
comes out of the gap. And during going out of gap, the direction of instantaneous flux of
vector B that crosses the cross-section of frame also will not change, changes only the
absolute value of your dear "average flux". Thus, on whatever variation of
standard formalism would you rely, you will not get the inversion of flux with the loop
coming out of gap. At the same time the experimental results will show you the same
inversion of emf at the centre of gap as in the second experiment of paper. This means,
not everything in the paper is so much expectable? ;-) Simply you would analyse these
results deeper, in particular the condition of compensation of parasitic emfs in the loop.
Instead to do so, you snipped the substantiation from my before-last post with Fig. 3 as
irrelevant. I'm inserting this figure again.
|
|
Fig. 2. |
| In this figure you can see the frame just
compensative and that it allows to measure just the inductance in the rod, not in the
loop. Though in the paper we showed, it is unnecessary to apply the compensative frame.
Simply we have to fulfil few conditions (this is what I'm adding now). The first condition
has been indicated in the paper - this is localisation of magnetic field. Second condition
is visual from the experiment of my previous post which puzzled you - this is the location
of taps as far as possible from the rod of core. The compensative construction of frame
only provides the reliability of measurement but is not necessary if these conditions have
been fulfilled. You have skipped this all, and now you are saying, you don't understand.
Naturally. This is just about what I'm tired to tell in the newsgroups. Take any question
and analyse it namely as it is. Try to turn this toy, not confining yourself to the edges
given by conventional conceptions. Try to get to know, what will occur if you change the
conditions of experiment. Your eyes will get open.
In order to advance more fruitfully in understanding, we need a funded project. This is not a request, and I don't mean a least to insist, only I already told you this simple thing and now recall by the way. Then you could not solve the problem and now you cannot comprehend the input to this labyrinth that leads just to the problem which you did not solve. These are all features. In reality this all is very simple. ;-) Kind regards, Sergey.
|
