On 8 Aug, 23:02, Benj <bjac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Aug 8, 1:40=A0pm, blackhead <larryhar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > We know that the relation****p between the source current and induced
> > > current is causal, but the source current ALSO causes B and A though
> > > neither are causal to E. =A0Hence, the question that needs to be
> > > modeled, is what kind of "aether stress" would produce this
induction=
?
> > > If it is not B nor A then what kind of "model" can we imagine that
> > > would produce the parallel electrokinetic E field that generates
> > > induction? What kind of "stress" in the Aether can we imagine that
> > > does this?
>
> > > Anyone?
> > Benj, I think you have failed to mention one extremely im****tant
> > point: The direction of the induced EMF at a point caused by the
> > changing current in the current element depends upon where the rest of
> > the closed path is taken!
>
> > Similarly, if you have a test charge, the induced EMF acting upon it
> > depends upon the direction the charge is moving in. Or if you have a
> > static B, the force acting on the charge is always normal to the
> > direction it's moving in. Which begs the question: How can a changing
> > current produce an E or a static current produce a B that "knows"
> > which direction the test charge is moving in to consistently apply a
> > force in a direction related to the direction the charge is moving in?
>
> You are obviously correct and one "answer" is that the E produced from
> a changing current element is NOT the usual electrostatic E as is
> commonly assumed. The properties are quite different and it has been
> termed variously "E induction" or "Electrokinetic E" to point out the
> differences.
Since E is, by definition, the force per unit charge that increases
its kinetic energy, then I don't see how creating a name for E when
the charge is static and another for when it is moving helps. They are
both the same - A measurement of the force on a charge that increases
its kinetic energy. Perhaps by "Electrokinetic E" you mean the E that
arises from the complex interaction of the sources and responses
propagating with a finite velocity C which is too complicated to model
fundamentally.
> For everyone else: We are talking here about placing a charge on on
> pole of an electromagnet that is increasing (or decreasing) in field.
> The charge will experience a force that drives it in a circle. BUT the
> direction and location of the circle depend upon the initial velocity
> of the charge! There is NOT a single E field in a single direction!
>
> > I think the answer is simply that the E field of the test charge acts
> > upon the charges that make up the current element which likewise
> > creates a retarded E field that acts back upon the test charge which
> > acts back upon the current element etc etc.
>
> Possibly. I'd have to think about it.
>
> > Electromagnetism as taught in textbooks seem to miss out the
> > complicated feedback relation****p that exists between charges as the
> > source of electromagnetism and the reacting charges.
>
> Now this is very, very true. Nobody in EM seems to "get" what feedback
> relation****ps mean. One of the most salient examples is the
> calculation of the self-inductance of a straight wire. Everybody has a
> cow over the fact that the mutual inductance equation has an R in the
> denominator that goes to zero as the separation between the source
> current and the induced current goes to zero. It "blows up" they all
> cry! But does it really? No. The key is that as you reduce the
> distance between the source and induced elements the mutual coupling
> gets larger and by doing so the mutual inductance reflects emf BACK
> upon the driving source reducing the source current and finally
> driving it to zero! These feedback kinds of relation****ps just fly
> right over the heads of people used to straight linear math. It's a
> whole area of calculation that has been TOTALLY ignored!- Hide quoted
tex=
t -
> - Show quoted text -
|
