#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

# Ampère’s motor, Faraday's disk, or the Achilles' heel of Maxwell's electromagnetism

2»

• edited November 2016

@Jehovajah

I would like to point out again that Matt Emery's reading of Leedskalnin, as described here, won't fit the bill. Why? Because he is using right-hand screw only to model what Faraday called lines of force.

It is very easy to prove. Matt sees the line of force as two right-hand screws moving in opposite directions – screwing through each other, so to speak. Thus he gets the double helix. But what is the total momentum of this double helix at each point of each line of force? Zero. And what is the total moment of momentum of this double helix at each point of each line of force? Also zero. Bar magnets with this type of lines of force will neither attract nor repel each other!

To get the exact attraction/repulsion pattern we observe for bar magnets, we have to have both right-hand screw and left-hand screw moving through each other. Then we get a field which is comprised of lines of torque (rather than lines of force as Faraday imagined) that fits the attraction/repulsion pattern of bar magnets precisely.

This line of torque is not a double helix – it is rather something like this.

Indeed @Barau_R_Tour , the Archimedian screw or the screw into a screw hole only provides momentum relative to each other. One would have to be fixed to develop the forced movement..
The "standing wave" structure provides a stationary structure against which to move.
Your torque structure is also viable and indeed provides a source for filamentary twisting out of a magnetic surface .

A mechanical explanation is useful but can not explain how the forces move through each other . The forces are inherent in material vibration no matter how fine.

This morning I realised that the proportion Newton defined as the force label means that we ca not have a continuous force action that is constant,all forces are impulses of greater or lesser duration .
If I accelerate an object by running with it, I clearly come to a limit! Bear with me. If two of us accelerate the same object the limit is reached quicker! If 100" of us accelerate the object the duration becomes even shorter!
My point is, the more powerful the source the less time it has to act . Thus resonance is vital to the continuous application of force. . The frequency has to increase as the amplitude remains constant.

But at higher frequencies a large amplitude becomes reciprocally more draining of energy (LHC). Thus the frequency overtones practically apply accelerative forces to those objects that can resonate with them . Large masses would not respond to high frequencies until accelerated to the right velocity .
From a magnetic behavioural point of view these rotational screws as Mechanical analogues are helpful for an instantaneous snapshot of a dynamic surface interaction, but misleading for a continuous dynamic behaviour.

Standing superpositional rotational trochoids of force surfaces ellicited in a fluid medium is where my meditation is at

• @Barau_R_Tour @Jehovajah
From Advertisement, here's one of the experiments Leedskalnin uses to demonstrate the theory in question:
Another way to prove this is to connect a flexible wire loop east end of the wire with positive battery's terminal, west end with negative terminal, raise the loop one inch above the floor. Put U shape magnet one inch from loop, north pole south side of the loop. The north pole magnet will pull in the loop. Put the south pole magnet in the same place. It will push the loop away. Put the south pole magnet north side of the loop, this time it will pull the loop in. Put the north pole magnet in the same place, it will push the loop away. This indicates that electricity the same as a magnet bar is composed of two equal forces, and each force is running one against the other in whirling right hand twist, but those forces in the wire have higher speed, and both forces are coming out across from the same wire. One of the forces is north pole magnets and the other is south pole magnets. They are the cosmic forces.
• @Barau_R_Tour @Jehovajah
From Advertisement, here's one of the experiments Leedskalnin uses to demonstrate the theory in question:
Another way to prove this is to connect a flexible wire loop east end of the wire with positive battery's terminal, west end with negative terminal, raise the loop one inch above the floor. Put U shape magnet one inch from loop, north pole south side of the loop. The north pole magnet will pull in the loop. Put the south pole magnet in the same place. It will push the loop away. Put the south pole magnet north side of the loop, this time it will pull the loop in. Put the north pole magnet in the same place, it will push the loop away. This indicates that electricity the same as a magnet bar is composed of two equal forces, and each force is running one against the other in whirling right hand twist, but those forces in the wire have higher speed, and both forces are coming out across from the same wire. One of the forces is north pole magnets and the other is south pole magnets. They are the cosmic forces.

This is precisely what Ampère demonstrated. Only he perceived the loop as a dipole magnet, not as individual magnets, whirling out into space in opposing directions. The magnetic individual magnet is a position Gilbert took in explaining magnetism, and one Örsted ascribed to in a natural philosophical manner. While Gilbert was an atomist I am not sure Ōrsted was specifically.

The word individual is better understood as indivisible as in the "atom" sense of the early atomic theory.

The assertion of a magnetic current is in opposition to the concept of an electron flow in the wire,

As I discovered Ampere is the one who first hypothesised a current analogy. Before him, the powers existed in the atmospheres in and around the inducted Material. Volta favoured this naturalistic atmospheric fluid, but his hypothesis was ignored in favour of Galvano's chemical reactant explanation and Faradays ion labels. These were precursors to the electron particle which reified a particle analogy.

Gilbert's particle analogy was and is useful and is entirely able to replace +/- or positron and electron or electron and proton as pairs. What was missing in the adoption of the electron was the vorticular dynamics of their behaviour. The ideabwasbthat the electrons flowed wholly contained in the conductor, and a mysterious magnetic rotation was established outside the wire. The early notion of dielectric was then confused with the insulation material used to prevent shorting!! The dielectric material was to enable the flow of the current, not to insulate the currents in the wire from each other! This is why we do not usually understandbfaradays and Maxwells reference to dielectricity.

Ivor Catt in pointing out the inconsistencies in the current electromagnetic theory replaces it by his TEM step wave . He also fails to see the vorticular dynamic andvthev2 vortices because the mathematical symbols obscure them.

Early in my meditations on the current around a wire I termed the individual magnets of Eds description as 2 plasmas . This was to connect plasma physics to this topic for any insights. The anode and cathode rays proved informative, but in no way discover the cause or source of magnetic behaviour. They did visibly demonstrate the 2 interlacing behaviours, and explain why the 2 fluid model is so apt an analogy.

Here, however I do not use a differentiated plasma / aether but simply an abstract force behaviour in a trochoidal dynamic surface. The materiality could be any fluid

In this regard Nuclear magnetic Resonance and Ken more verbosely have established a complex dynamic model that clearly works. Unfortunately it is couched in arcane Mathemythical language which I have tried to briefly explain

The centripetal centrifugal confusion I have clarified, better to use converging and diverging.

Conjugate is a grammar term used very specifically in mathematical expressions .
Bombelli used the term adjugate to describe complex numbers formed by placing them together separated by a plus sign that is purely combinatorial. Later Gauss used Eulers i to form complex adjugates a + bi
In grammar to conjugate is to add different suffixes to a stem thus the same idea is modified by the suffix. In thisvsensebthe stem a is conjugated by the suffixes + bi and -bi . The expressions formed are conjugates.

When describing the topology of a vortex by exponential terms it is the conjugates that are rotationally opposite.

The mathematical models have tobe tuned to real behaviour, not the other way round! !

The fact that these trochoidal patterns actually appear in the film is amazing in itself. While no one can say this is the actual pattern of interference of the trochoidal dynamic it is better than iron filings and a considerable advance on just weighing iron filings to see which pole is stronger!

Using this pattern I assert that the magnetic trochoidal standing pattern cross sectional to the axis is super symmetric and thus not noticeably rotated by the magnet rotating axially.