Hi Keith, You write, > The "big three" Fe Ni Co all have gyromagnetic ratios around > 2, iron being the material we were discussing. I looked at > Bozorth to verify the above statement, and he describes a short > history of measurement of G listing Barnett in 1914 as having > experimentally discovered the value 2, then Einstein-de Haas in 1915 > listed as publishing the value as 1. Needless to say, if that is > correct we have another egregious Einstein blunder to sweep under > the table (grin). Stewart and Beck (1918-1919) and all subsequent > researchers confirmed Barnetts number, of course.
I also find Bozorth very useful. Perhaps due to the minimal emphasis on QM. Well, it would only be an arithmetic mistake for Einstein. I'm more concerned by Einstein's support for the highly non physical concept of the photon. Mills gets much criticism for extending the electron to atomic dimensions. Optical photons extend for distances that simply demand a wave model. RF photons are truly ridiculous. Please notice the complete absence of a physical model for either emission or absorption of photons by atoms. > The same argument could be made for electric dipoles in a dielectric as > for magnetic ones, yes? And yet we see the opposite results. Either > I'm being thick-headed here or the world is in denial about this... > I'd be delighted if we could thrash this one out. I don't understand what factor you find is opposite in ferroelectrics. > Hmmm... and we see the opposite, at least over the whole cycle. Energy > is stored in the inductor when we charge it up, and released > when discharged. Right, the individual dipoles are doing the opposite of the overall inductor energy. The returned energy comes from thermal energy destroying the ordering of the dipoles. I refer to the input and output energy of a ferromagnetic inductor as the "available energy". The actual field energy, the energy from the dipole alignment and found in the spaces between the dipoles is about mu times as great as the "available energy". It is interesting how the standard treatment pretty much ignores the huge energy present between the dipoles and perhaps reasonably concentrates on the available energy which is actually lower at a given flux density in higher mu materials. Perhaps this is the source the apparent contardictory behavior you find in the energetics of ferromagnetic materials. > - QM assumes the huge violation of classical electromagnetic laws away > - without any alternative physical model. Perhaps the Sakarov/ Puthoff > - ZPE energy balance orbital model can be extended to explain atomic > - stability without the magic wand assumptions of QM. > > I'll chew on that one for a while. Let me know what you think. I would be willing to discuss my partly baked ideas further offline. George Holz Varitronics Systems
