Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #597449 > unrolled thread

How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 15:07 -0700
    How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 17:25 -0700
    Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-18 20:32 -0500
      Magnetic Field in most-everything Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 19:38 -0700
        Re: Magnetic Field in most-everything Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 15:51 +0000
          people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 13:07 -0700
            Re: people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-19 16:15 -0500
              Re: people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 14:29 -0700
                Re: people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-19 19:51 -0500
                  Faraday law looks like (V*R^-1)' = A*R + B + constant; Ampere law looks like (A*R)' = B + V*A^-1 + constant Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 19:41 -0700
                    Re: Faraday law looks like (V*R^-1)' = A*R + B + constant; Ampere law looks like (A*R)' = B + V*A^-1 + constant Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-20 09:55 -0500
                      Re: Faraday law looks like (V*R^-1)' = A*R + B + constant; Ampere law looks like (A*R)' = B + V*A^-1 + constant "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-09-20 09:03 -0700
            Re: people that do not understand that if you have a Magnetic Field which is always a vector, that multiples thereof are also vectors moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 22:26 +0000
              This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 19:23 -0700
                Re: This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-19 21:41 -0500
                  (A*R)' = A'*R  +  R'*A and derivative (V*R^-1)' = V'*R^-1  +  V*(R^-1)' Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 22:12 -0700
                    derivative of magnetic field Re: (A*R)' = A'*R  +  R'*A and derivative (V*R^-1)' = V'*R^-1  +  V*(R^-1)' Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 23:45 -0700
                    Re: (A*R)' = A'*R + R'*A and derivative (V*R^-1)' = V'*R^-1 + V*(R^-1)' Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-20 10:09 -0500
                Re: This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 04:08 +0000
                  Re: This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-20 10:28 -0500
                    Re: This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 16:40 +0000
      Someone in Old Physics trying to flesh out Faraday's law Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 20:03 -0700
        Re: Someone in Old Physics trying to flesh out Faraday's law Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-09-18 22:31 -0500
          Old Physics Faraday law math does not match the experiment Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 20:51 -0700
            math that matches is the Product Rule in Differentiation that gives a Lenz law inside of Faraday law Re: Old Physics Faraday law math does not match the experiment Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-19 02:47 -0700
      trying to teach a brainwashed that velocity on Magnetic Field is just another Magnetic Field Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 20:20 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#597701 — Re: This moron thought a magnetic field is only a vector dependent on how it was derived Re: people that do not understand

Serigo <invalid@invalid.com> writes:

>it is fun going back and looking at the equations again in different 
>areas.  Maxwell is cool.

You know something I recently found that was interesting: Perhaps you
remember Archie blathering about applying Maxwell's Equations to
gravity.  Well, it turns out there actually is a set of equations that
is very similar to Maxwell's Equations that apply to gravitation.
Nothing like what Archie was saying, of course, and no connection to
electromagnetism.  The differences were related to things like
gravitation is always attractive but electromagnetism can attract or
repel, mass is always positive, and of course all the constants were
different.  There is a very weak "gravitomagnetism" term related to
the motion of mass, and this is what Gravity Probe B was looking for.
I'll have to find it again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597495 — Someone in Old Physics trying to flesh out Faraday's law Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 8:33:03 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:

> 
> nope, Maxwell-Faraday equation is  =>  ∇ × E = -dB/dt
> 

So, your saying the opposing Magnetic Field created by the newly minted current is all encapsulated by a negative sign.

Do you actually believe that?


> 
> > And one can immediately sense how wrong that is because it does not
> > even give a opposing Magnetic Field to the changing magnetic field,
> > as if a negative sign is sufficient to cover Lenz law.
> 
> no, that is the negative sign in Faraday's law of induction.
> 
> Volt generated = -N (d BA)/dt    see? no curl.
> 

So now, what is the actual mathematics of the Thrusting in the thrusting bar magnet? What is that?

Is that a velocity of Magnetic Field, or is it a acceleration of Magnetic Field. Or, is it even more than Magnetic Field but rather a acceleration of Magnetic Flux?

What do you think?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597500 — Re: Someone in Old Physics trying to flesh out Faraday's law Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here

On 9/18/2016 10:03 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 8:33:03 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:
>
>>
>> nope, Maxwell-Faraday equation is  =>  ∇ × E = -dB/dt
>>
>
> So, your saying the opposing Magnetic Field created by the newly
> minted current is all encapsulated by a negative sign.
>
> Do you actually believe that?
>

sign is only the direction to a frame of reference.   right hand rule

3. Derivation of Third Law

Curl E = - DB/dt

“It is nothing but the differential form of Faraday’s law of
electromagnetic induction.”

  According to Faraday’s law of electromagnetic induction, it is known
that e.m.f.induced in a closed loop is defined as negative rate of
change of magnetic flux i.e.,

e=–dθ/dt

where θ = magnetic flux



>>
>>> And one can immediately sense how wrong that is because it does
>>> not even give a opposing Magnetic Field to the changing magnetic
>>> field, as if a negative sign is sufficient to cover Lenz law.

minus sign is opposing mag field, Lenz Law, no problem here.

>>
>> no, that is the negative sign in Faraday's law of induction.
>>
>> Volt generated = -N (d BA)/dt    see? no curl.
>>
>
> So now, what is the actual mathematics of the Thrusting in the
> thrusting bar magnet? What is that?

in terms of what? what is the setup, what do you want to know, are you 
putting the bar magnet into a coil of wire ? the lines of magnetic flux 
crosses the wires and induces electron flow in the wire.

Faraday's Law: Electric force due to a changing B-field
Main articles: Faraday's law and Magnetic flux

A changing magnetic field, such as a magnet moving through a conducting 
coil, generates an electric field (and therefore tends to drive a 
current in such a coil). This is known as Faraday's law and forms the 
basis of many electrical generators and electric motors.

Mathematically, Faraday's law is:

     E = − dB / d t

where E is the electromotive force (or EMF, the voltage generated around 
a closed loop) and Φm is the magnetic flux—the product of the area times 
the magnetic field normal to that area. (This definition of magnetic 
flux is why B is often referred to as magnetic flux density.)[32]:210

The negative sign represents the fact that any current generated by a 
changing magnetic field in a coil produces a magnetic field that opposes 
the change in the magnetic field that induced it. This phenomenon is 
known as Lenz's law.

This integral formulation of Faraday's law can be converted[nb 16] into 
a differential form, which applies under slightly different conditions. 
This form is covered as one of Maxwell's equations below.

no problems yet, you have equation now.

>
> Is that a velocity of Magnetic Field, or is it a acceleration of
> Magnetic Field. Or, is it even more than Magnetic Field but rather a
> acceleration of Magnetic Flux?

just change in magnetic field, as flux lines cross wire, accelleration 
of mag field not needed.

>
> What do you think?
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597502 — Old Physics Faraday law math does not match the experiment

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 10:31:07 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:
> On 9/18/2016 10:03 PM, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 8:33:03 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> nope, Maxwell-Faraday equation is  =>  ∇ × E = -dB/dt

(snipped)
> 
> in terms of what? what is the setup, what do you want to know, are you 
> putting the bar magnet into a coil of wire ? the lines of magnetic flux 
> crosses the wires and induces electron flow in the wire.
> 
> Faraday's Law: Electric force due to a changing B-field
> Main articles: Faraday's law and Magnetic flux
> 
> A changing magnetic field, such as a magnet moving through a conducting 
> coil, generates an electric field (and therefore tends to drive a 
> current in such a coil). This is known as Faraday's law and forms the 
> basis of many electrical generators and electric motors.
> 
> Mathematically, Faraday's law is:
> 
>      E = − dB / d t
> 
> where E is the electromotive force (or EMF, the voltage generated around 
> a closed loop) and Φm is the magnetic flux—the product of the area times 
> the magnetic field normal to that area. (This definition of magnetic 
> flux is why B is often referred to as magnetic flux density.)[32]:210
> 
> The negative sign represents the fact that any current generated by a 
> changing magnetic field in a coil produces a magnetic field that opposes 
> the change in the magnetic field that induced it. This phenomenon is 
> known as Lenz's law.
> 
> This integral formulation of Faraday's law can be converted[nb 16] into 
> a differential form, which applies under slightly different conditions. 
> This form is covered as one of Maxwell's equations below.
> 
> no problems yet, you have equation now.
> 

Huge problem still, the equation does not cover all the physical aspects of the experiment.

Why do you refer to books and not commonsense reasoning.

Faraday Law:

Thrusting Bar Magnet into coil = current + Lenz law of opposing magnetic field

So, what is the math symbols for Thrusting Bar Magnet, in your above? is it -dB/dt Is that what Thrusting Bar Magnet is for you??

Then, what is the current in your law? Is it the  ∇ × E

Then, you have missing the Lenz magnetic field that opposes the thrusting bar magnet. Are you saying that the -1 in front of -dB/dt is the Lenz opposing magnetic field. Or, I thought you said -dB/dt was the  thrusting bar magnet.

So, your math does not match the experiment results


Thrusting Bar Magnet into coil = Current plus a Lenz magnetic field opposed to original magnetic field

Why does not your math match what happens in reality?

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597514 — math that matches is the Product Rule in Differentiation that gives a Lenz law inside of Faraday law Re: Old Physics Faraday law math does not match the experiment

Purcell's Old Physics of wastrel math Re: Product Rule of Differentiation brought in to fixing Maxwell Equations TALK

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 2:34:46 AM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 11:56:27 PM UTC-5, Archimedes Plutonium wrote: 
> (snipped) 
> 
> Let me start on getting the new math for the New Revised Maxwell Equations: 
> 

What I am doing here is establishing the New Maxwell Equations, rather than the pathetic old Maxwell equations that could not even provide Lenz law within Faraday's law. 

Now few people know that the Maxwell Equations math was begot from water flow math. The Gaussian surface, Stokes and Grad math were involved with water flow, and they saw a tiny glimmer of resemblance to electrons as a fluid flow and thus saddled electricity and magnetism with "schmuck math". The flow of water is a tiny tiny bit similar to flow of electrons or magnetic behaviour but a horrible mistake to saddle EM to a math meant for water. Keep in mind that Gauss died in 1855 and the Maxwell Equations were in 1860s. The motivation of Stokes theorem was by Kelvin working with temperature and heat, not magnetism and electricity. 

So here we see that by 1860s Maxwell was using this "new math in his time" but highly inappropriate math for dealing with electricity and magnetism. 

I am using Purcell's "Electricity and Magnetism" book, 1965, Berkeley series, where on page 73, he uses this inappropriate math in dealing with electricity and magnetism. 

So, now, what if someone came down to Earth from an alien planet with far superior wisdom of the world than we have, and told Maxwell that the Electric Field is nonexistent, just a piece of imagination gone amok. So that Maxwell would have to do his equations without an electric field. Would he still use Gauss and Stokes math? Or, would he find some better math? 

Now many are going to complain to me that since 1860 to 2016, no physicist or mathematician ever complained about the math in Maxwell Equations. And my answer is, that people just adored Maxwell so much, that no-one was smart enough to get around the adoration and look at the actual fit of math to reality. 

The Maxwell Equations cannot even deliver Lenz law within the Faraday Law. And the only reason no-one brings this flaw up, is that everyone is so in adoration and everyone is sort of scared of that math of Gauss and Stokes. It is not easy, and when something is not easy, then the professors tend to stay quiet as deer in the forest. 

So, it looks as though it is my task to fix the math of the Maxwell equations. 



> > 
> > 5 New Maxwell Equations: 
> > 
> > 1. Magnetic Field Primality Law, think of it as the unit of electromagnetism 
> 
> This one is easy, for it is the building block of the other 4, since most of the terms will have a magnetic field component. 
> 

I am going to need 5 equations, not 4, because I need a "There exists a primal unit" and that primal unit is not the electric charge, but is the magnetic dipole which forms a Field, the Magnetic Field is primal. Just like in math, we start the Naturals with "there exists 1" and from that primal starting point we build all the other counting numbers. 

> So the Magnetic Field Primality law is 
> 
> kg /A*s^2 = kg /A*s^2 
> 

That is the magnetic field, and some have suggested that the Electric Field is kg*m/A*s^3, but that cannot be true because, well, all that is is a moving Magnetic Field, a m/s times Magnetic Field. 

> It says that magnetism is Dipole and that everything of electricity has a dipole component. It also means that since electricity is not primal, that electricity has no Electric Field, for if it had an electric field, would mean that there is no Primal unit in EM. Much like Math, there is only one primal number in Counting 1, and 1 goes on to build all the other Counting Numbers. 
> 
> > 2. Magnetic Motion, Law of Magnetism 
> 
> Now in this Law of Magnetism we make the mathematics easy, instead of the Goofy Gaussian overstructure that hides more than it reveals. 
> 
> For math we use derivative as rate of change and denoted as speed of m/s. In the Magnetic Field of 
> kg /A*s^2 there is no speed, but if we multiply by speed we have kg /A*s^2 times m/s = kg*m /A*s^3. And what is that? What is kg*m /A*s^3 ?? It is not voltage because voltage is  kg*m^2/A*s^3. 
> 
> What  kg*m^2/A*s^3 is, is magnetic field in motion and that it is either a 4 vector Double Transverse Wave or is a Longitudinal Wave. 
> 
> So, Law of Magnetism builds the Photon and builds the Neutrino 
> 

The Photon and Neutrino are EM particles, and since there is no electric field, how are they built from Magnetic Field? Well, there are two ways of arranging magnetic field lines of force, either as transverse or as longitudinal. When Transverse, then the destructive interference of the magnetic field vectors cancel and causes the center of the wavefront to be voltage. 

> > 3. Electric Motion, Law of Electricity 
> 

The Law of Electricity, was not about defining the Coulomb force, since there is no Electric Field, but rather, was meant to define what is current. It is a hole in the head of logic if we do not define electric current and then go to Faraday Law and there is electric current. It is like having a baby borne and then do the fertilization for making the baby. 

> Now, keeping the math simple, by a derivative or differential being the multiplication by m/s. So, what is Electric Motion, Law of Electricity? Well, we all know that electric charge in motion is current, and so the Law of Electricity must define the current. And since there is no Electric Field, there is voltage that takes that place of electric field and it is 
> 
> V =  kg*m^2/A*s^3   
> 
> So, electric current A is defined as C charge times (m/s) = A 
> 
> Now if we place that into Voltage we have kg*m^2/C*m*s^2 = kg*m/C*s^2 so the difference between Magnetic Field and Current, is that Current is in a conductor of length m, whereas Magnetic Field is in space with no m confinement. 
> 
> We need the Law of Electricity to define current, before we see current in the Faraday law. This was a major error of the Old Maxwell Equations, that we come upon a current only when we reach Faraday's law. 
> 

Now here is where we get to the real math part of the Maxwell Equations, the Faraday and Ampere laws. And throw out that Gauss, Stokes, line integral and all other sorted nonsense. 

All we need is just the plain and simple Product Rule of Differential Calculus. All we need is a derivative of two multiplied functions of (fg)' = f'g + g'f + C, where C is a constant. So that both Faraday and Ampere laws have three terms on rightside of equation. 

> 
> > 4. Magnetic = Electric,  Faraday/Lenz law 
> 
> These last two laws are dynamic and so the product rule of differentiation comes into play. We know the endresult outcome, so we have to structure the math to fit the experiment of thrusting bar magnet through coil yields current plus opposing magnetic field plus a spin term. 
> 

Now I do not know whether the Faraday law we see today with only one term on rightside of equation was due to Maxwell or perhaps Heaviside, but the Lenz law effect was well known to Maxwell, that a magnetic field arises to oppose the thrusting bar magnet. 

Yet the Faraday law in math form, never takes into account the second magnetic field, the Lenz magnetic field. And that should have made Maxwell suspicious that his Equations were in error on Faraday law. 

> I have been doing experiments lately and find that there is a spin term upon the magnet as it falls through a coil. 
> 
> In my Experiments, called eddy currents of a falling magnet in a copper tube versus a plastic tube, the copper has a Lenz law resistance of 1/3. I have to make the copper tube be 3 times longer to match the plastic tube where the LED comes on. This is important for the Fusion Barrier Principle, in that all machines built to control fusion, allow breakeven to only reach 2/3 breakeven. 
> 
> But getting back to the Faraday law written correctly should be: 
> 
> (f*g)' = f'g + fg' + constant    Product Rule of differentiation 

The way to get three terms on the rightside of equation is the Product Rule and that means just simple 
differential Calculus, not the stir-crazy line integrals and Stokes and other nonsense. 

> 
> Thrusting bar magnet through coil = current + magnetic field (Lenz) + constant 
> (kg /s^2) (A^-1)                          =        A          + kg /A*s^2  + constant 
> 
> And it must be noted that friction in the World, basically boils down to Lenz magnetic field. 
>   

it is a sad shame, that Faradays law can exist from 1860s to 2016, while no-one sees that it does not even have a Lenz law incorporated in it. Sad that we can deliver a equation for water flow or temperature gradients, but we cannot recognize that Faraday's law math is absent of Lenz law. 


> > 5. Electric = Magnetic,  Ampere/Maxwell law 
> > 
> 
> Here again, the Product Rule 
> 
> A times R =  magnetic field + displacement (whether magnetic or current) + constant 
> 

Now part of the great adoration of Maxwell is how he figured out there needed to be a displacement current in Ampere. Funny how he could do that and not recognize that there needed to be Lenz included in Faraday. 

And the easiest way of knowing that a additional term needed to be in Ampere is that the Product Rule demands at least two terms on rightside. 

> The constant here is again a spin; in the Faraday law a spin is imparted on the magnet, in the Ampere law, a spin is imparted on what I do not know? Perhaps the conduction wire if not rigid, otherwise it becomes friction. 
> 

But not only does the rightside of Faraday and Ampere need two terms, it needs three terms, because in the Product Rule a constant is borne and that third term is a spin, what the electron and proton have a spin of 1/2. But Maxwell never lived to see electrons and protons with spin in the 1910s. 

> 
> > For (1) I just need to say-- the Magnetic Field is the prime component of all things electric, and is like 1 in math that goes on to build 2,3,4, etc It means no electric field exists. 
> > 
> > For (2) I need to say that the differential on Magnetic Field is magnetism in motion and is what builds the Photon and builds the Neutrino. Both photon and neutrino are just simply B fields in motion. The photon is Double Transverse 4 vector B fields and the neutrino is longitudinal wave B fields. So the math on dB/dt is 
> > 
> > dB/dt = light wave = r_B 
> > 
> > dB/dt = neutrino longitudinal wave r_V 
> > 
> 
> It is clear to me that in order to get at least two terms on the rightside of the equation, the Product Rule has to come into play, instead of the Gaussian math, we need the math that actually matches the experiments. 
> 
> So, this is a challenge to reset the mathematics of Maxwell Equations. 
> 
> AP 

I take on that challenge, for I suspect the math is really easy compared to the bizarre math of water flow and heat and temperature flow and gradients that Gauss, Kelvin, Stokes and Maxwell started. 

Easy, because there is no Electric Field and easy because it is an application of the Product Rule. 

And what products do we run into? Well, for starters there is the product of V times 1/R to make current. So, right away, in Faraday law we have ( V*R^-1)' = V'(R^-1) + V(R^-1)'  + C. 

Is that the new the real true Faraday Law? And is that the real true Ampere law? 

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#597496 — trying to teach a brainwashed that velocity on Magnetic Field is just another Magnetic Field Re: How to gather the missing terms in Faraday Law, and yes, Maxwell goofed here

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 8:33:03 PM UTC-5, Serigo wrote:

> 
> Electric Field units are V/m
>    Voltage units are V
> 
> you have apples and oranges, mixed up.
> 

Wrong.

The Voltage is kg*m^2/A*s^3

The Magnetic Field is kg/A*s^2

If the Electric Field were V/m = kg*m/A*s^3 then this would mean the Electric Field is a velocity of the Magnetic Field kg/A*s^2 times m/s

A velocity of a Magnetic Field is just, another Magnetic Field, it is not an Electric Field.

That is why no Electric Field exists, and in place, the V is the electric field.

AP

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web