Harry Veeder wrote:
> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
>>
>> Harry Veeder wrote:
>>>
>>> If an electric field exists outside and parallel to the current
>> carrying> wire, and the wire is a loop it implies the electric
>> field lines would
>>> form a closed loop. However, this is not suppose to possible.
>> Certainly it is. It's only possible, however, if there's a changing
>> magnetic field in the loop. Curl(E) = -dB/dt.
>
> Ok but it concerns a constant current so the magnetic field is constant too.
>
>> But in any case, exactly *how* would you arrange to have a current
>> carrying resistive wire carry a current in a closed loop? Where's the
>> EMF coming from? Answer that and you'll see how the field outside the
>> wire plays out.
>
> I mean the emf together with the wire form a loop, i.e. a closed circuit.
> I can see how the construction of the electromotive force (such as a
> battery) might prevent an electric field inside the wire from forming a
> loop, if the
> emf does not harbor an electric field.
But it does -- that's exactly what causes the EMF.
> However if there is an electric
> field outside the wire then shouldn't the field go around the emf to
> make a closed loop?
No. Try to draw a picture of what you're thinking of and I think you'll
see the problem.
First, a battery is just a fancy capacitor with a major chemical boost
to the energy storage capability, so for our purposes we can replace it
with a capacitor. Now, let's draw the thing (horrible Ascii graphics;
unit width font, please, or it won't look like anything):
<--
-------------------------------------
/ \
| | | ^
| | | |
V | | |
| - plate <-- + plate |
\ | | /
-----------------| <-- |-------------
--> | | -->
<--
I've shown a roughly square wire loop, with a capacitor in the bottom
"leg" of the loop, and I've shown arrows next to the wire indicating the
direction of the E field at all points. The capacitor plates are
labeled "+ plate" and "- plate". Around the capacitor, note that the E
field points the *other* *way* from the field near the wires.
In fact the E field *never* forms closed loops except when there's a
changing magnetic field contained inside the loop. Otherwise the E
field starts and ends at charges -- it's anchored to charged particles
at both ends. That's as true inside a wire as it is outside a wire.
>
>> In other words, you have, essentially, hypothesized a closed loop of
>> wire with an E field pointing along the loop all the way around, and
>> then asked how there can be an E field in the *air* going all the way
>> around the loop. Well, how can there be such a field inside the
>> wire to
>> start with?
>
>
> In Weber's electrodynamics the electric field is a mathematical fiction,
> a mere calculating device, so this "paradox" is not an issue.
There is no "paradox" here.
As to the field being a fiction, yes, I am aware that you can treat it
as such, but it works equally well to treat it as real. And treating it
as real has the advantage that radio waves are nice, intuitive objects,
made of fields; if we assume that there's no field there it gets more
confusing.
> Of course, the
> emf is real because it is what does the work to maintain
> a charge imbalance in a closed circuit.
In the wire, yes; in a simple closed loop of wire, no.
You must have something driving the charges around the wire.
>
>
>
>> Last I heard the Lorentz force, F = q(E + vxB), fully explained the
>> behavior of charged particles in E and B fields.
>>
>> Do you know any evidence that this is not the case?
>
>
> The ball bearing motor?!?
Touché!
Thanks; I'll read these and comment later, but it may be a while. I've
got some other "off-list" email on the BB motor I have to dig through as
well; I've gotten behind.
>
> ok,ok, three of the four published papers listed below support a
> prediction based on Weber's force law. Admittedly these three were all
> done by the same person.
>
>
> i) V. F. Mikhailov. The action of an electrostatic
> potential on the electron mass. Annales de la
> Fondation Louis de Broglie, 24:161–169, 1999.
> http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-241/aflb241p161.pdf
>
> ii) V. F. Mikhailov. Influence of an electrostatic potential
> on the inertial electron mass. Annales de
> la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 26:33–38, 2001.
> http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-264/aflb264p633.pdf
>
> iii) V. F. Mikhailov. Influence of a field-less electrostatic
> potential on the inertial electron mass.
> Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 28:231–
> 236, 2003.
> http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/AFLB-282/aflb282p231.pdf
>
> The next one repeats the experiment in (i) but found no evidence
> supporting Weber's theory.They conclude,"A possible cause of Mikhailov’s
> positive result may be due to his choice of coupling the signals from
> the neon-glow-lamp oscillator to an external counter through a capacitor
> rather than through an electrically isolated optical fibre, as done in
> the present work. Any small leakage current through the capacitor will
> impact the frequency of the oscillator and this leakage will change as a
> function of the bias voltage."
>
> (iv) J. E. Junginger and Z. D. Popovic. An experimental
> investigation of the influence of an electrostatic
> potential on electron mass as predicted by
> Weber’s force law. Canadian Journal of Physics,
> 82:731–735, 2004.
> http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/rpv?hm=HInit&afpf=p04-046.pdf&journal=cjp&volume=82
>
> Harry
>
>
>
>
>
>
