Connect with us

New Inductance

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

Scroll to continue with content
  1. 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

    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

    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.

  2. Sam Wormley

    Sam Wormley Guest

  3. Roy L. Fuchs

    Roy L. Fuchs Guest

    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. Fuchs

    Roy L. Fuchs Guest

    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. Fuchs

    Roy L. Fuchs Guest

    You're a fucking retard, and the only thing that doesn't exist with
    you is credibility.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. I've no reason for any contention regarding this. It is a different
    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. Please catch some magnetic field and send it to me.
  10. 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.

  11. Roy L. Fuchs

    Roy L. Fuchs Guest

    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. Fuchs

    Roy L. Fuchs Guest

    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. Fuchs

    Roy L. Fuchs Guest

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

    Don Kelly Guest

    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.
  15. Don Kelly

    Don Kelly Guest

    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
    added nothing except conjecture.

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

  17. krw

    krw Guest

    phatbytestard (aka Dimbulb, aka Roy L. Fuchs)
    Back to Phat Bytstard, eh DimBulb?
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day