Re: Maxwell's Displacement Current

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 10/27/04 

Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 19:35:08 GMT

"jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:2u9vebF264h9qU1@uni-berlin.de...
:
: "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: news:WMMfd.55133$i02.41135@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: >
: > "jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
: > news:2u84fsF289b6fU1@uni-berlin.de...
: > :
: > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > : news:4Bzfd.160483$BI5.140879@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > : >
: > : > "jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
: > : > news:2u7mmeF271f01U1@uni-berlin.de...
: > : > :
: > : > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > : > : news:Csufd.47342$i02.25488@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > : > : >
: > : > : > "jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
: > : > : > news:2u57poF26kflaU1@uni-berlin.de...
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : "jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
: > : > : > : news:2u565dF261fgfU1@uni-berlin.de...
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > : > : > : > news:zfcfd.45555$i02.6440@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > : > : > : > >
: > : > : > : > > "jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
: > : > : > : > > news:2u4mhbF26lg9bU1@uni-berlin.de...
: > : > : > : > > :
: > : > : > : > > : "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote in message
: > : > : > : > >
news:uE7fd.153930$BI5.69320@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: > : > : > : > > : |
: > : > : > : > > : | "sal" <pragmatist@nospam.org> wrote in message
: > : > : > : > > : |
news:pan.2004.10.25.01.38.45.967816@nospam.org...
: > : > : > : > > : | : On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 14:10:18 +0000, Androcles
: > wrote:
: > : > : > : > > : | :
: > : > : > : [snip]
: > : > : > : > >
: > : > : > : > >
: > : > : > : > > :
: > : > : > : > > : ---------
: > : > : > : > > : Sue...
: > : > : > : > > : Oh Yeah.. The topic... (I am easilsy
: > distracted...BLUSH)
: > : > : > : > > : Maxwell's Displacement Current
: > : > : > : > > :
: > : > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node41.html
: > : > : > : > >
: > : > : > : > > Ugh... back to doing hard sums.
: > : > : > : > >
: > : > : > : > > (382) has solution in the form A.sin(wt + phi) and
does
: > not
: > : > : > compel
: > : > : > : > > E and B fields to be in phase. Remember to add a
: > constant
: > : > when
: > : > : > : > > integrating.
: > : > : > : > >
: > : > : > : > > (383) .... oh, there it is .... j, a 90 degree phase
: > shift.
: > : > : > : > > Looks like I agree with Maxwell after all, if you
plot
: > it in
: > : > the
: > : > : > : > > complex
: > : > : > : > > plane with a time axis.
: > : > : > : > > I expect some people think the j refers to the two
: > fields
: > : > being
: > : > : > : > > orthogonal,
: > : > : > : > > but @E/@t tells all. It's phase shift.
: > : > : > : > Right-Oh! (382) is from Faraday's law or the
: > "orthogonality
: > : > : > relation"
: > : > : > : > The + or - j in (383) is the advanced or retarded
: > potential
: > : > and is
: > : > : > : > *imaginary*
: > : > : > : > power transfer so has no obligation to respect the
speed
: > of
: > : > light.
: > : > : > : > In converting cgs and Coulomb gauge to SI something
gets
: > : > terribly
: > : > : > : > misstated because of this oversight but my own math
skills
: > : > leave
: > : > : > : > me dependant on other's papers to try an describe it.
: > : > : > : > http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/bpm/bpm15.htm
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : >
: > : >
: >
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/MagneticVectorPotential.html
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > Anyway... It will cause any discussion of SR to run in
: > circle
: > : > : > unless
: > : > : > : you
: > : > : > : > can not only show the errors but also the fix.
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > > Good research, Sue.
: > : > : > : > Thank you. :-)
: > : > : > : > Now if you one of you maths gurus will replace the
: > "displaced
: > : > : > : > ether" and "retarded potential" with a 177 ohm
resistor I
: > can
: > : > : > : > Google up our Nobel lecture instead of some harried
: > : > professor's
: > : > : > : > scribblings.
: > : > : > : >
: > : > : > : > Sue...
: > : > : > : OOps! Make that 377 ohms or 120 pi ohms or even SAT or
SOT.
: > : > : > : Also... reconsider if the B field can even exist in the
far
: > : > field,
: > : > : > : absent any
: > : > : > : matter to do the 90 degree transformation.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > I'll refer you to Christiaan Huyghens. Take ANY point on
the
: > : > : > pond surface that is above the mean level.
: > : > : > It is a source of radiation. A circle of such points will
: > radiate
: > : > : > a wave to the centre so that the centre, through
: > superposition,
: > : > will
: > : > : > produce a higher point than the outlying circle. There is
a
: > wave
: > : > : > travelling back to the centre that can only be observed
: > : > : > mathematically. The "permeability" in this case (water
being
: > the
: > : > : > dielectric) is gravity and the "permittivity" is the
: > viscosity.
: > : > : > Pour oil on troubled waters, or water on the moon. Either
way,
: > : > : > I'll wager the speed of ripples on a given radius and
depth of
: > : > pond
: > : > : > is slowed.
: > : > :
: > : > : That's a good argument and one I've used myself on that side
of
: > the
: > : > : issue. In fact, in the Doppler thread 'twas I who said the
: > magnetic
: > : > : flux reversals would be sensed and not the wave crests. That
is
: > what
: > : > got
: > : > : me thinking because, so far, I am lossing a bet about
magnetism
: > : > existing
: > : > : absent a spinng charge.
: > : >
: > : > I have a teminology problem here. Is that spinning as in the
Earth
: > : > spins
: > : > on its axis once a day? Or Earth talking a spin around the sun
: > once a
: > : > year?
: > : > If the former I don't see how it can produce a magnetic field.
: > : >
: > : > John Kennaugh is in favour of bipolar charge couples, Pos_Neg
as
: > with
: > : > bipolar magnets N-S, but I favour monopolar magnets and
electrons.
: > : > Perhaps this is mere prejudice.
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > : Nevertheless, a spinning charge is just too convenient a
: > mechanism
: > : > for
: > : > : the 90 degree E to B translation to cast the mystery to the
: > vagaries
: > : > of
: > : > : the vacuum. Einstein used a similar argument that the vacuum
: > wasn't
: > : > : truly nothing. (pssst... that means he assumed and ether).
: > Since we
: > : > : don't want to accept an ether comprised of electric "top
: > faries", It
: > : > : makes a better case if we can say the 90 degree translation
only
: > : > occurs
: > : > : in the presence of matter.
: > : > :
: > : > : Both Huygens principle and Feynman's sum over paths, have
: > multiple
: > : > : solutions that permit us to get the right answer even if we
: > assume
: > : > the
: > : > : wrong propagation mode. So let's agree that clocks don't
really
: > : > follow
: > : > : all paths and wavelets don't really spawn children in space.
: > : > :
: > : > : I am sure that the "back propagating wave" is like nails on
a
: > : > chalkboard
: > : > : to our more SR oriented friends but it keeps rearing it's
head
: > : > through
: > : > : out this thead and not something we should reject on the
basis
: > of
: > : > speed
: > : > : limits because it isn't moving enegry anyway and may exist
only
: > as a
: > : > : mathematical "place holder" or imaginary function invoked
: > depending
: > : > on
: > : > : the material composition of the path.
: > : > :
: > : > : >
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : Consider:
: > : > : > : << The dominant energy in the Far Field is Electric.
: > : > : > : The dominant energy in the Near Field is
Magnetic.
: > : > : > : >> http://www.williamson-labs.com/glencoe-emc-11.htm
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : --AND--
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : Can you prove a magnetic flux line exist somewhere that
: > : > : > : does not go through the axis of a charged particle.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Can you prove a magnetic flux line exists?
: > : > : QHE and FQHE ?
: > : > : http://www.bell-labs.com/news/1998/october/13/2.html
: > : > : Iron filings don't.
: > : > : > Each becomes a miniature magnet and they repel each other,
: > : > : > leaving a gap that gives the appearance of lines.
: > : > : > Consider the ferrite ring and the copper wire passing
through
: > : > : > it with open ends. Close the ends of the copper into a
ring
: > : > : > and open the ends of the ferrite (or simply exchange
metals,
: > : > : > copper for iron and iron for copper). We use ferrite
because
: > : > : > iron is also a conductor of electricity. Now pass a flux
down
: > : > : > the ferrite by bringing the ends into contact with a bar
: > magnet.
: > : > : > What is happening inside the copper?
: > : > : Magnetic Susceptibilities of Paramagnetic and Diamagnetic
: > Materials
: > : > at
: > : > : 20°C
: > : > :
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/magprop.html
: > : > : http://www.britannica.com/eb/print?tocId=71541
: > : > : > Have we got flux induction?
: > : > : You have an RL network with different values.
: > : > : > What useful purpose could we put it to?
: > : > : Sell to audiophiles as "monster cable" boosters. ;-)
: > : > : > How about this: Begin with a copper and ferrite ring
: > interlocked.
: > : > : > We can open the copper ring, stretch it to twice its
length,
: > wind
: > : > : > two loops around the ferrite and close the ends again.
: > : > : > We can do the same with the ferrite.
: > : > : > If you like, you can think of it as a figure 8 copper wire
: > with
: > : > two
: > : > : > turns of ferrite though the holes. We don't have to stop
: > there,
: > : > : > but let's pause. What if we had a ferrite figure 8 with
two
: > loops
: > : > : > of copper?
: > : > : Ahhh... everything you mentioned seems to be collections of
: > spinning
: > : > : charges.
: > : > : > Does "polarity" raise a question?
: > : > :
: > : > : It is worth mentioning. To a magnetic observer, a clockwise
: > electron
: > : > : looks the same as an anti-clockwise positron.
: > : > :
: > : > : > Of course we can continue in this manner, 3 loops of
copper,
: > : > : > 3 loops of ferrite, then 4, 5, 6... until we fill the hole
in
: > the
: > : > : > middle.
: > : > : > But that won't happen if we stretch the wire every time,
so we
: > can
: > : > : > continue on indefinitely. The trouble is, we can insulate
the
: > wire
: > : > : > to stop the current leaking, but how do you stop the flux
: > : > escaping?
: > : > :
: > : > : Indeed! Or it's gravitational attraction. Ya cant shield
that
: > : > either.
: > : >
: > : > And there is capacitance to consider too, so even the current
: > "leaks".
: > : > But let's go back the interlocked loops and imagine the
current
: > : > flows in the copper, and it is a superconductor.
: > :
: > : OK... but promise me this isn't your homework. I have to refer
you
: > : to another poster if it is. ;-)
: > :
: > Of course it is! Besides, I can give myself full marks for it.
: > All right, I'll cut the loop, plate the ends with plumbum, slide
: > a plastic jacket over it and fill the gap with HCl.
: > Will that do instead of a superconductor?
: > At least for a while, anyway.
: >
: > : > Don't we have a permanent magnet?
: > :
: > : Well it could be an overgrown lepton but most of those
: > : die off in puberty or late muonity.
: > :
: > : And if we open the ferrite out into a bar, polarity?
: > : Right had rule applies.
: >
: > I'm left-handed. Hold it upside down. What are you going
: > to do with thu(M)b, anyway? Fleming will have to go back
: > to discovering mouldy penicillin.
: >
: > : > and so we close
: > : > the 'loop' of the bar magnet with vacuum, isn't that a field
in
: > : > nothing?
: > : Spinning entities on one side of the gap are coupled to spinning
: > : entities on the other side of the gap. If the material is
flexible
: > they
: > : will prove their coupling by closing the gap.
: >
: > What, squeeze out the acid?
: >
: > : > A DC photon perhaps?
: > : Now this is a different issue. You are seeking a material
object to
: > : span the distance rather than simply accept that a pair of
charges
: > : communicates a force electrically over a distance by their very
: > nature
: > : (and magnetically if they are spinning.) At some fundamental
level
: > you
: > : have to accept that mechanisms you can model are comprised of
more
: > : fundamental mechnism for which you can have no model.
: >
: > Yeah, kinda like smashing atoms to see what they are made of.
: > Not easy, too many bits break off.
: >
: > : If I say electrons and positrons don't exist, only
particle-pairs
: > filled
: > : with space of many varied sizes does that make it better.
: > : That is a little like the mathematician who make the largest
animal
: > pen
: > : with the least fence by enclosing himself.
: > : > Close the ferrite loop and open the copper loop. Zilch.
: > : Hardly... Sparks! Lenzes law.
: >
: > Egads! So it DOES work!
: >
: >
: > : > Close the copper loop again, and put AC in it. The ferrite
doesn't
: > : > mind.
: >
: > : I think it does. In many ways. But it doesn't add any clarity
to
: > this
: > : discussion. Because indeed, ferrites if they are not black
magic,
: > they
: > : do at least have a mind of their own to mind with.
: >
: > : > It'll go along with it. AC photon? But this one is leaking,
the
: > : > magnetic filed gets away and the current decays. Why doesn't
the
: > bar
: > : > magnet version [do] the same?
: >
: > : I think it does but something about your gedanken is escaping
me.
: > You
: > : are using ferrites where you really want magnetic conduit.
: >
: > Well, yeah. But that's only to prevent inducing a current in the
iron,
: > otherwise I'd be talking about resistance and I want to exclude
that.
: > Those transformer and rotor slices are insulated to prevent that,
if
: > it didn't matter they'd be made of solid iron castings instead of
: > thin *** stampings, it's cheaper. I'm happy with any kind of
: > magnetic conduit that doesn't also conduct electrickery.

: OK... ya threw me off with:
: (or simply exchange metals, copper for iron and iron for copper).

Well, I was changing gears rather rapidly.

: I *think* you are "rootin' " around a Maxwell experiment where a
current
: in a loop of wire would move an electron at the loops center but an
: electron moving throrough the loop, wouldn't induce a current.

Hmm.. sticking third finger of right hand up (no, I'm not making a
rude gesture) index finger forward and thumb to the right, drop
doughnut over middle finger. Current in direction of index finger,
goes counter clockwise, magnetic field lines make an apple around the
doughnut.
Put electron in middle of hole, thumb says move this away. Electron
gravitates to ring, yes? Hits the ring to joins its buddies, hangs a
sharp left,
or are all its buddies are on the outside of the ring?
Did I fergit sumptin'? Oh... yes, them field line on the outside go
the other way. All buddies are at the core. Wasn't there sumptin'
about skin effect?
Androcles

There are
: several misinterpretations of his misinterpretation but I'll wait
for
: your clarification before starting... yet another
misinterpretation.
: Kind regards,
: Sue...
:
: >
: > : The fact that
: > : such a thing exists only a collection of spinning charges AFAWK,
is
: > some
: > : evidence that magnetic flux lines are alway defined by matter.
: > : >
: > : > :
: > : > : > :
: > : > : > : This has considerable impact on the theory you were
: > describing
: > : > : > : where loops of magnetic flux reach out to infinity and
also
: > what
: > : > : > : I beleive is a misguided atempt to equate E and B fields
in
: > SI
: > : > : > through
: > : > : > : the use of SR.
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Well, SR was the most idiotic theory anyone ever adopted
in my
: > : > : > opinion, but truth is often stranger that fiction and not
: > everyone
: > : > : > knows the difference.
: > : > : Eh..;-) . the main point was to eliminate the ether and I
can go
: > : > along
: > : > : with that part.
: > : > : Faraday rotation might suck some dark out the issue because
the
: > : > speed of
: > : > : a CP waves is dependant on direction of polarization.
: > : > : I'll google a bit on that.
: > : > : Many thanks for your thoughtful comments.
: > : > : Sue...
: > : >
: > : > I don't have all the answers. I think I know what some of the
: > : > questions should be, though.
: > : Asking the right questions is usually 90 % of the solution.
: > : Kind regards,
: > : Sue...
: > :
: > :
: >
: >
:
:

Quantcast