Special Relativity Sorry. I should have probably included the full version at least once.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote: > John-- > > What does SR stand for or mean? > > Bob > > *From:* John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Friday, February 21, 2014 3:32 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* [Vo]:Homopolar generators and the truth of magnetism > > Here we go again... > > > I have strongly argued that according to SR, magnetic fields occur due to > relative motion between electric charges, maybe also electric fields and an > observer with a relative motion to the charge/fields. > > This view makes a lot of sense because you can even show that all magnetic > forces are expected distortions of electric fields from motion. > > But I do not believe in SR one bit, and there is evidence to the contrary > for this view of magnetism. > > First we may assume that ferromagnetism can be modelled as a lot of tiny > electromagnets that create a large virtual electromagnet winding. > > Of course if in fact the ferromagnetic field is the results of spins, and > protons on the nucleous then these arguments would be weakened somewhat as > it would differ greatly in many respects. > > Anyway, if we set a homopolar disk into rotation in the direction of the > ferromagnetic electron motion direction (the direction the electrons would > move in the coil), then the relative magnetic field the disk sees from > these electrons would decrease as it begins to match their velocity and the > disk would see pancaking of protons instead. This would reverse the > polarity of the radial voltage from the wire both from an electric field > pancaking view, or from the perspective of magnetic flux lines moving with > the protons view. > > But there would be a tell tail limit, once the electron velocity of the > magnetic field source is matched (which is glacial in an air core > electromagnet, but possibly very swift with ferromagnetism), no further > increase of induction voltage would take place however much the RPM in > increased, since any movement would lead to an equal enhancement to both > the electron and proton generated magnetic field. > > But additionally, if the rotation direction is reversed, then no voltage > would have been produced at all if in a stationary magnet the proton is not > contributing to the field. > > The reason is that if the field is relative to the motion of the charges, > and a stationary magnet relies entirely on electron motion to establish a > magnetic field, then moving against the electrons motion increases the > electrons magnetic inductive effect and by equal and opposite increase the > proton's effect inductive effect to achieve no net effect as I understand > it. Basically the induction from the protons would cancel the induction > from the electrons. > > I have never heard of a homopolar/unipolar/n-machine generator caring > which direction it is rotated. > > And even if the protons were responsible for some of the magnetic field in > a stationary magnetic field, then it would still be unlikely that the 2 > influences are balanced. > > Such a variation should have been noted, indeed this would even apply to > hall effect measurements, where some orientations, positions and polarity > of applied current would lead to no, or less hall effect being produced > than seemingly identical equivalent situations. > > It is not impossible, but it seems very unlikely that this would have gone > unnoticed. > > If however the magnetic field is created by relative motion of the > electrons through the wires reference frame, there is no expectation for > any of these issues or limits since the magnetic field would exist in all > frames identically, and no magnetic field from the protons in a wire would > exist no matter what your motion is relative to that wire. > > John > > > > > > > Because the > >
