New Inductance

• posted
If you make a single loop of wire bent into a circle and pass a regulated 1
amp current through it you will make a "magnetic field". According to Gauss
you have to imagine it is there and calculate accordingly. Then comes an
extraordinary performance of human intellect beginning with the magnetic
shells construction that shows that the field is uniform across the plane of
the loop.
According to Carl Popper we should now measure it to see.
Using a compass as a tangent galvanometer with the earth's field as a
reference you can measure the relative strength of the field in the region
of the magnet by measuring its deflection (according to the field theory). I
have done this and the field is about three times higher near the wire than
at the centre. This disproves the magnetic shell construction.
Another basic algorithm is the idea that a series of loops is like one loop
multiplied. Well if you do the same thing for six turns then the compass
measurement is the same near the wire than at the centre.
This shows that the basic algorithm of what is true on one is true of many
as one times the number of repetitions, is false.
I would like to propose a different model: that the magnet is responding to
spin-spin interactions as a quantum mechanical effect. These are entirely
electrostatic in nature.
The magnetic field does not exist it is fictitious.
The model of the magnetic effect of current is in reality the Lorenz
contraction of the moving electrons relative to the fixed charges in the
wire and the electrostatic force is mediated by virtual photons.
Since the electrons always occupy the same space in the wire even though
they are moving it shows that special relativity is an effect like
perspective.
The inductive effect is in reality caused by the acceleration of electrons.
Now these little charged particles are governed by quantum mechanics and the
energy states up the ladder are discontinuous and the electrons jump from
one state to the next the two states overlap and during the transition a
fluctuation occurs and a photon emission occurs, just like the hydrogen
spectrum.
This photon interacts with just one electron in another wire or the same
wire and imparts momentum and energy to change the electron from its
original state to its new state. This also means that the photon carries
momentum both linear and angular and energy.
This is both mutual and self inductance.
Chris

• posted
See:
• posted
Look at Smith-Purcell radiation and see if your charges aren't moving waaaay too slow for the effect you are assuming.
Sue...
• posted
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:38:42 GMT, "The Real Chris" Gave us:
You're an idiot. The only thing that you have proven is that you do not know how to make observations and include all influences in your examination of any observances.
• posted
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 06:38:42 GMT, "The Real Chris" Gave us:
Ever heard of a transformer, idiot?
I have made them that transform 3 turn primaries into 4000 turn secondaries, and the math all works.
• posted
Rubbish quantum mechanics it true at all energies. The energy of each of the quanta are hf where f is the frequency of the exciter and the number of quanta per cycle is the energy per cycle divided by hf. Nothing special about low energies.
• posted
Well I've done it several times with different loops and even with a planar coil with the turns in a narow bundle. The effect is far to marked to be an error.
• posted
I've no reason for any contention regarding this. It is a different phenomina. Here more of the photons leaving the exciter get collected by the secondary. It is of course possible that some photons get used more than once or twice.
• posted
Thank you, I tell you where you can see a lobotomised nude lady human robot dancing in a sexy idiot dancing show. Morely college London, You might need a pass to get past the guard and you might end up as one yourself.
They generally have to catch her after and re-attach her lead otherwise she skips off down the street to play with her toys.
Chris.
• posted
On Sat, 15 Jul 2006 19:04:17 GMT, "The Real Chris" Gave us:
Stop top posting, you retarded twit.
The transformer is a long rectangle with the primary at one end and the secondary at the other. ALL flux is transferred via the core. Once and only once.
That last line pegs you squarely as a loon.
• posted
I have no idea where you get the idea that the field should be uniform. Indeed, a quick computation shows that for a loop of 1mm square wire in a circle of radius 250 mm and a current of 1A, the B field at the center is 25 Gauss, and at radius 240 mm it is 213 Gauss -- far from uniform.
[Yes, I have a program that can easily compute this; it took me about 3 minutes to set it up and run it for this geometry.]
For my values above, one will not achieve ~10% uniformity until the coil is more than 250 mm long. That's a lot more than 6 turns. But your compass has very poor resolution (far worse than 10%).
Your discussion gives no support for this contention at all. Indeed, you seem to be measuring a magnetic field....
Tom Roberts
• posted
transformin dc!? fool
• posted
right, but his idea of photon exchangind make sense
• posted
The Real Chris top-posted:
and wrote earlier:
Is there some way you can relate this Lorenz contraction to the velocity of a electon in a conductor or electron beam? I have seen a formula for that somewhere.
The photon energy you cite would depend on atomic emission and absorbtion would it not? So we could perhaps turn off the lights and watch the magnetism being formed.
Sue...
• posted
On 15 Jul 2006 13:49:55 -0700, "my mother" Gave us:
Actually, it is quite possible, and is the very basis for how a car ignition coil works.
A standing DC field is placed on the "transformer" and upon release of the DC current, the field snaps back down and the collapse yields a stepped up voltage at the secondary.
Got clue?
• posted
On 15 Jul 2006 14:38:06 -0700, "Sue..." Gave us:
You guys seem attracted to each other. Is it "animal magnetism"?
• posted
Hi Sue,
Have a look at my web page on
and there is those formulas there.
Chris.
• posted
So what velocity do I put in the formula?
Sue...
• posted
Dude, I think you finally pissed all the electrons off. They're not delivering this page: