# New Inductance

Discussion in 'Electrical Engineering' started by The Real Chris, Jul 15, 2006.

1. ### The Real ChrisGuest

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

3. ### Roy L. FuchsGuest

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.

4. ### Roy L. FuchsGuest

Ever heard of a transformer, idiot?

I have made them that transform 3 turn primaries into 4000 turn
secondaries, and the math all works.

5. ### Roy L. FuchsGuest

You're a fucking retard, and the only thing that doesn't exist with
you is credibility.

6. ### The Real ChrisGuest

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

7. ### The Real ChrisGuest

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.

8. ### The Real ChrisGuest

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.

9. ### The Real ChrisGuest

Please catch some magnetic field and send it to me.

10. ### The Real ChrisGuest

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.

11. ### Roy L. FuchsGuest

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.

12. ### Roy L. FuchsGuest

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?

13. ### Roy L. FuchsGuest

You guys seem attracted to each other. Is it "animal magnetism"?

17. ### Don KellyGuest

What nonsense. Increase frequency, reduce core flux for a given voltage and
number of turns , so make a smaller core at the original flux density.
Nothing to do with Chris's rubbish. Much to do with Faraday.

18. ### Don KellyGuest

---------
First of all, what theory indicates this?. The best you can say is that
there is a region near the center where the field is nearly uniform. The
size of the region is dependent on the size of the loop.
-----------
----------
And if the loop diameter is tight enough and enough turns are present and
close enough, that is true. So what? It is explainable.
---------
-----
You have been through this all before. The problem is that you have shown
nothing new or exciting.
I have, on hand, an engineering textbook, which evaluates the forces on
moving charges in terms of the electric field.
For charge e1 moving at velocity v1 and charge v2 moving at velocity v2
F=(1/c^2)(q1v1 X(v2 X E21) where E21 is the electric field at q2 due to q1
Define B= (1/c^2)(v2 X E21) and you get
F=q1(v1 X B ) which is the Lorentz force equation (ignoring coulomb force)

A brief, less than one page, analysis then the text gets on to useful
electromagnetics in terms of measurable quantities .
This particular reference was originally written 40 years ago and the
material has been know and observed in physics for far longer. You have

Note B is the magnetic flux density. Note also that B can be measured and no
unmeasurable "virtual photons" are needed. On the basis of this, one can
say the magnetic field is due to electrostatic effects between moving
charges. While this may be the source of the magnetic field, the field is
not ficticious.
Magnetic field concepts are based on what was and is observable.
All that you have is a more complex way of trying to define what is easily
defined now. Now how is a virtual photon any more real than a magnetic
field. Can you detect such a photon? The only reason to consider a photon is
that some cannot conceive of a force without a mechanical interaction so
come up with something virtual which can go bump in the night.

Is there any reason to bother using a more complex approach to handle a
problem when the complexity adds nothing? It has apparently led you into
strange ideas with regard to transformers and adding copper screens
etc.-ideas which fly in the face of facts.

19. ### Phat BytestardGuest

bwuahahahah... Top posting retard. Your theory is lame as well.

SNIP

20. ### krwGuest

phatbytestard (aka Dimbulb, aka Roy L. Fuchs)@getinmahharddrive.org
says...
Back to Phat Bytstard, eh DimBulb?