Re: Charged spinning disks

On May 17, 6:53 am, RP <no_mail_no_s...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 17, 2:16 am, Benj <bjac...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip irrelevant answer to some other question]

Yes, the " I " in Ampere's Law refers to two currents rather than to
one and similarly for I primed. Suppose you have two parallel
conductors with equal currents in the same direction. The conductors
are identical. In this case Ampere's law has II' being proportional
to the net force per unit length of the conductors. But if you assume
the frame of reference of the electron currents, then they are no
longer currents but simply static charges at rest. The force between
the conductors continues unchanged however. Thus there must still be
II' even in this frame of reference and moreover II' cannot be
referring to the drifting electrons. In this new frame II' refers to
the drift of positive charges.

You are SO stuck on metal conductors! So the question thus arises if
an electron beam creates a magnetic field in space. You apparently are
saying no. Electrostatic repulsion between the two beams is the only
force of repulsion there. And oddly, there can never be any "magnetic"
attraction between the two currents. Hence it appears you are saying
magnetic fields don't exist. Which is what I was suggesting at first.
But it's better than that. If I move relative to the beams which
represent currents then presumably charges appear or are subtracted
from the beams which change the amount of repulsion between them
relative to my motion. So isn't that interesting! Obviously this
can't be true either!

So, in the case of parallel monopolar beams Ampere's law is invalid.
You should be able to see that for the basic electromagnetic
equations, I must be defined as the average rate of flow of electrons
wrt the protons in the same conductor. For a monopolar beam of
electrons a current of this sort can thus not be defined. We can
extend that to bodies with fixed static charges on them that are in
motion. Ampere's law does not apply to them either. In fact, Ampere's
law cannot even apply to a current carrying conductor on which an
excess charge exists, the conductor must be charge neutral otherwise
Ampere's law is again invalid.

So in effect, you have thrown out Ampere's law except for currents in
uncharged wires, and denied the existence of any magnetic fields
except from currents in wires, and pretty much have said that the beam
down a CRT isn't really a current at all and certainly doesn't create
a magnetic field. Wow. Your are a bigger crank than I am! No wonder
Sue thinks you're wonderful!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ... conductors with equal currents in the same direction. ... referring to the drifting electrons. ... an electron beam creates a magnetic field in space. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Charged spinning disks
    ... currents, one of positive charge and one of negative charge. ... conductors with equal currents in the same direction. ... refering to the drifting electrons. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Baluns?
    ... ALSO common mode but the fileds do NOT cancel because the conductors ... If transmission line currents were common-mode, ... like crazy and would be an antenna instead of a transmission line. ...
    (rec.radio.amateur.antenna)
  • Re: Measuring Current in a Magnetic Field: A Physics Problem...?
    ... I want to measure if any currents are flowing from A-C, ... If I hook this up to standard measuring instruments, ... First it would be helpful to know the mag field frequency, and size of the conductors. ... Third, it is easy to measure mag fields without disturbing it too much, then from the measured field deduce the induced voltage. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Contradictions?
    ... Let's see you derive the force between parallel conductors with ... currents I and I' for equal values of I and I', ... For any two opposing lines of charge the equation is ... any frame in motion along x. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading