Excellent questions. I will try to find some good references. But, I think only masochists try to understand magnetism.
Dave Roberson wrote: > > What happens if you assume a frame of reference that is at the same > velocity as the moving electrons? No relative motion exists under that > condition to allow coupling. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Veeder <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Jun 10, 2012 1:52 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed Storms' new Theory/Model > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Surface plasmons provide good examples of coherent charge currents. > The electric field can also provide analogous coupling. > > A mechanical analog > > - One uncoupled freight train car traveling 50 km/h cannot climb a 10m > hill > - but the lead car coupled to 100 others moving at 50 km/h can easily > Nice analogy. >> I believe that collisions involving many coherently moving charges >> cannot > be reduced to high energy collisions involving single charged particles. > > I do like Storms's approach. > I wonder whether the surface cracks serve as notch antennas which can > focus incident fields many thousands of times. > The fields must be focused millions of times according to Ed. > he tracks keep the train of cars "rigid" otherwise a small bump would > ake the lead car veer off course. > o either you need tracks or a smooth terrain. > harry > >
