What does the electric field of a uniformly increasing magnetic field
look like? Placing a charge at each point and measuring the force on
it would be one way to measure the E, yet why would it move in a
particular direction normal to B given the symmetry of the problem?

On May 24, 12:40 pm, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:

What does the electric field of a uniformly increasing magnetic field
look like? Placing a charge at each point and measuring the force on
it would be one way to measure the E, yet why would it move in a
particular direction normal to B given the symmetry of the problem?

Why do planets move normal to their sun's axes? B is a >pseudovector.

On 25 May, 11:39, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On May 24, 12:40 pm, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:

What does the electric field of a uniformly increasing magnetic field
look like? Placing a charge at each point and measuring the force on
it would be one way to measure the E, yet why would it move in a
particular direction normal to B given the symmetry of the problem?

Thanks for the reply. I only weakly understand what you mean, but a
little research has shown that pseudo-vectors cause difficulties in
problems that appear symmetric which I will investigate further. Your
point is very subtle so you I suspect you have a background in
theoretical physics, right?

blackhead wrote:
On 25 May, 11:39, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On May 24, 12:40 pm, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:

What does the electric field of a uniformly increasing magnetic field
look like? Placing a charge at each point and measuring the force on
it would be one way to measure the E, yet why would it move in a
particular direction normal to B given the symmetry of the problem?
Thanks for the reply. I only weakly understand what you mean, but a
little research has shown that pseudo-vectors cause difficulties in
problems that appear symmetric which I will investigate further. Your
point is very subtle so you I suspect you have a background in
theoretical physics, right?

Nay, she has a background in mental illness. Hey, NOBODY but the
voices in her head understand what she means! Actually the
transformations of psevdovectors (Autyme always uses Roman spelling!)
have nothing to do with your question. [Big surprise!]

You've simply discovered that the "one E field" dogma is invalid.
Place a charge in an electrostatic field and observe the magnitude and
direction of the force. The charge moves in the direction of the
Electrostatic field.

Now place a charge on the pole piece of a magnet and uniformly (I
presume you mean linearly) increase the field. In what direction is
the force upon the charged particle? As it turns out, the charged
particle experiences an acceleration, but the path of that
acceleration is a circle and furthermore, the initial direction
depends solely upon the tiny initial velocity of the particle. The
actual circular path of the particle is one of many each of which is
determined by the various possible initial velocities. The more usual
situation is where the charges are confined to a given path by a
conductor which might be imagined as a hollow frictionless tube.

The bottom line is that there is NO way the field experienced by a
charged particle on the pole piece of a magnet can be the same as an
electrostatic E field.

Um, what was the question?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_vector

So if Autyme is a babbling fool, then he's using the right language

Um, what was the question?

Thanks. You have confirmed most of what I was thinking. Looking at
what you and Autumn have suggested, I've come to the conclusion that I
should be using the magnetic vector potential A instead to analyze the
problem since it is a proper vector.

blackhead wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_vector

Aware of it.

So if Autyme is a babbling fool, then he's using the right language ;)

Actually, according to Autyme, that would be "she". I can see from
your posts you are a very kind person. However, Autyme like so many
others seems to find some kind of therapy in Internet posting. I may
seem harsh, but there are times when being too kind simply pulls down
the world on your own head. Even worse is that when you pull down the
world on your own head, you can also pull it down on those around you
as well. (think of well-meaning do-gooder policies that create all
manner of disastrous effects) the question therefore, is not am I
harsh, but rather am I fair and truthful. If you find inspiration in
Autyme's cryptic posts, then more power to you!

Um, what was the question?

Thanks. You have confirmed most of what I was thinking. Looking at
what you and Autumn have suggested, I've come to the conclusion that I
should be using the magnetic vector potential A instead to analyze the
problem since it is a proper vector.

This is correct. Looking at the Neumann equation for magnetic
induction, you'll see that it is really a MVP relationship. Feynman
and others suggest that A rather than B is the fundamental quantity of
magnetics, what he calls the "real" field. (See discussion of A
outside a solenoid where B is supposedly zero in his Lectures on
Physics, II, Sec 15-4ff) Another hint, for example, would be the self-
inductance of a long straight thin wire. By Biot-Savart, the B field
generated along the wire from the current in it tends to zero.
Therefore, it would appear from an examination of B that a straight
wire can have no self-inductance! This is clearly false. Straight
wires DO have self-inductance! But taking a clue from the Neumann
formula, one notes that the A field about a given current element in
the wire is spherical rather than donut shaped. Hence coupling down
the wire due to A is totally expected.

Good luck on your problem.

Benj

On May 26, 5:27 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
blackhead wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_vector

Aware of it.

So if Autyme is a babbling fool, then he's using the right language ;)

Actually, according to Autyme, that would be "she". I can see from
your posts you are a very kind person. However, Autyme like so many
others seems to find some kind of therapy in Internet posting. I may
seem harsh, but there are times when being too kind simply pulls down
the world on your own head. Even worse is that when you pull down the
world on your own head, you can also pull it down on those around you
as well. (think of well-meaning do-gooder policies that create all
manner of disastrous effects) the question therefore, is not am I
harsh, but rather am I fair and truthful. If you find inspiration in
Autyme's cryptic posts, then more power to you!

Um, what was the question?

Thanks. You have confirmed most of what I was thinking. Looking at
what you and Autumn have suggested, I've come to the conclusion that I
should be using the magnetic vector potential A instead to analyze the
problem since it is a proper vector.

This is correct. Looking at the Neumann equation for magnetic
induction, you'll see that it is really a MVP relationship. Feynman
and others suggest that A rather than B is the fundamental quantity of
magnetics, what he calls the "real" field. (See discussion of A
outside a solenoid where B is supposedly zero in his Lectures on
Physics, II, Sec 15-4ff) Another hint, for example, would be the self-
inductance of a long straight thin wire. By Biot-Savart, the B field
generated along the wire from the current in it tends to zero.
Therefore, it would appear from an examination of B that a straight
wire can have no self-inductance! This is clearly false. Straight
wires DO have self-inductance! But taking a clue from the Neumann
formula, one notes that the A field about a given current element in
the wire is spherical rather than donut shaped. Hence coupling down
the wire due to A is totally expected.

Good luck on your problem.

Benj

Put a circular loop of conductor, radius r, centre (0,0) in a
changing uniform magnetic field and we can use Lenz's Law to find the
induced EMF and so direction of the induced E in each element, dr, of
the wire. Yet move the loop a distance 2r in say the y direction, and
the direction of I in dr(0,r) and so E(0,r) is opposite to what it
was. It seems incredible that just moving the loop alters E(r)which is
down to me not understanding Maxwell's Equations deeply enough.

Hello Blackhead and Benj...

"blackhead" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message

news:1180202782.097752.268840@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...



On May 26, 5:27 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
blackhead wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_vector

Aware of it.

So if Autyme is a babbling fool, then he's using the right language ;)

Actually, according to Autyme, that would be "she". I can see from
your posts you are a very kind person. However, Autyme like so many
others seems to find some kind of therapy in Internet posting. I may
seem harsh, but there are times when being too kind simply pulls down
the world on your own head. Even worse is that when you pull down the
world on your own head, you can also pull it down on those around you
as well. (think of well-meaning do-gooder policies that create all
manner of disastrous effects) the question therefore, is not am I
harsh, but rather am I fair and truthful. If you find inspiration in
Autyme's cryptic posts, then more power to you!

Um, what was the question?

Thanks. You have confirmed most of what I was thinking. Looking at
what you and Autumn have suggested, I've come to the conclusion that I
should be using the magnetic vector potential A instead to analyze the
problem since it is a proper vector.

This is correct. Looking at the Neumann equation for magnetic
induction, you'll see that it is really a MVP relationship. Feynman
and others suggest that A rather than B is the fundamental quantity of
magnetics, what he calls the "real" field. (See discussion of A
outside a solenoid where B is supposedly zero in his Lectures on
Physics, II, Sec 15-4ff) Another hint, for example, would be the self-
inductance of a long straight thin wire. By Biot-Savart, the B field
generated along the wire from the current in it tends to zero.
Therefore, it would appear from an examination of B that a straight
wire can have no self-inductance! This is clearly false. Straight
wires DO have self-inductance! But taking a clue from the Neumann
formula, one notes that the A field about a given current element in
the wire is spherical rather than donut shaped. Hence coupling down
the wire due to A is totally expected.

Good luck on your problem.

Benj

Put a circular loop of conductor, radius r, centre (0,0) in a
changing uniform magnetic field and we can use Lenz's Law to find the
induced EMF and so direction of the induced E in each element, dr, of
the wire. Yet move the loop a distance 2r in say the y direction, and
the direction of I in dr(0,r) and so E(0,r) is opposite to what it
was. It seems incredible that just moving the loop alters E(r)which is
down to me not understanding Maxwell's Equations deeply enough.

Hello Blackhead and Benj...

Lenz's law is one of those nasty little "laws" that defies understanding
using classical applications of Maxwell's Equations.

The problem is that for 100 plus years, most of the scientific and
engineering community has been treating Maxwell's Equations as *causal*
equations. They are not. They are descriptive.

I have already stood on the Jefimenko soap box a few times, but will do so
again.

E does not cause H.
H does not cause E.

Causal solutions of E and H (Jefimenko's equations -- see them on
Wikipedia) show that both E and H are *caused* by charges and their motion.
One of the terms in these equations is defined by Jefimenko as the
"electrokinetic field." This term explains Lenz's law -- and a lot more.

His book, "Causality Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation" is approx
$25 on Amazon.com & may be the single best textbook investment you ever
make. (No, I don't get a commission!)

Bill Miller- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"blackhead" <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote in message

news:1180202782.097752.268840@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...



On May 26, 5:27 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
blackhead wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo_vector

Aware of it.

So if Autyme is a babbling fool, then he's using the right language ;)

Actually, according to Autyme, that would be "she". I can see from
your posts you are a very kind person. However, Autyme like so many
others seems to find some kind of therapy in Internet posting. I may
seem harsh, but there are times when being too kind simply pulls down
the world on your own head. Even worse is that when you pull down the
world on your own head, you can also pull it down on those around you
as well. (think of well-meaning do-gooder policies that create all
manner of disastrous effects) the question therefore, is not am I
harsh, but rather am I fair and truthful. If you find inspiration in
Autyme's cryptic posts, then more power to you!

Um, what was the question?

Thanks. You have confirmed most of what I was thinking. Looking at
what you and Autumn have suggested, I've come to the conclusion that I
should be using the magnetic vector potential A instead to analyze the
problem since it is a proper vector.

This is correct. Looking at the Neumann equation for magnetic
induction, you'll see that it is really a MVP relationship. Feynman
and others suggest that A rather than B is the fundamental quantity of
magnetics, what he calls the "real" field. (See discussion of A
outside a solenoid where B is supposedly zero in his Lectures on
Physics, II, Sec 15-4ff) Another hint, for example, would be the self-
inductance of a long straight thin wire. By Biot-Savart, the B field
generated along the wire from the current in it tends to zero.
Therefore, it would appear from an examination of B that a straight
wire can have no self-inductance! This is clearly false. Straight
wires DO have self-inductance! But taking a clue from the Neumann
formula, one notes that the A field about a given current element in
the wire is spherical rather than donut shaped. Hence coupling down
the wire due to A is totally expected.

Good luck on your problem.

Benj

Put a circular loop of conductor, radius r, centre (0,0) in a
changing uniform magnetic field and we can use Lenz's Law to find the
induced EMF and so direction of the induced E in each element, dr, of
the wire. Yet move the loop a distance 2r in say the y direction, and
the direction of I in dr(0,r) and so E(0,r) is opposite to what it
was. It seems incredible that just moving the loop alters E(r)which is
down to me not understanding Maxwell's Equations deeply enough.

Hello Blackhead and Benj...

Lenz's law is one of those nasty little "laws" that defies understanding
using classical applications of Maxwell's Equations.

The problem is that for 100 plus years, most of the scientific and
engineering community has been treating Maxwell's Equations as *causal*
equations. They are not. They are descriptive.

I have already stood on the Jefimenko soap box a few times, but will do so
again.

E does not cause H.
H does not cause E.

Causal solutions of E and H (Jefimenko's equations -- see them on
Wikipedia) show that both E and H are *caused* by charges and their motion.
One of the terms in these equations is defined by Jefimenko as the
"electrokinetic field." This term explains Lenz's law -- and a lot more.

His book, "Causality Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation" is approx
$25 on Amazon.com & may be the single best textbook investment you ever
make. (No, I don't get a commission!)

Bill Miller- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Put a circular loop of conductor, radius r, centre (0,0) in a
changing uniform magnetic field and we can use Lenz's Law to find the
induced EMF and so direction of the induced E in each element, dr, of
the wire. Yet move the loop a distance 2r in say the y direction, and
the direction of I in dr(0,r) and so E(0,r) is opposite to what it
was. It seems incredible that just moving the loop alters E(r)which is
down to me not understanding Maxwell's Equations deeply enough.

Hello Blackhead and Benj...

Lenz's law is one of those nasty little "laws" that defies understanding
using classical applications of Maxwell's Equations.

The problem is that for 100 plus years, most of the scientific and
engineering community has been treating Maxwell's Equations as *causal*
equations. They are not. They are descriptive.

I have already stood on the Jefimenko soap box a few times, but will do
so
again.

E does not cause H.
H does not cause E.

Causal solutions of E and H (Jefimenko's equations -- see them on
Wikipedia) show that both E and H are *caused* by charges and their
motion.
One of the terms in these equations is defined by Jefimenko as the
"electrokinetic field." This term explains Lenz's law -- and a lot more.

His book, "Causality Electromagnetic Induction and Gravitation" is approx
$25 on Amazon.com & may be the single best textbook investment you ever
make. (No, I don't get a commission!)

Bill Miller- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm amazed because I thought the crowning achievement of Maxwell's
equations was showing that there was a causal link between E and H
responsible for the propagation of electromagnetic waves through empty
space. I hope stuff like this is taught to undergraduates on physics
and engineering courses.

Maybe the inventors of the Cross Field Antenna weren't crackpots
afterall when they tried to synthesise the propagation of E and H
through space from their sourses.

The problem is that for 100 plus years, most of the scientific and
engineering community has been treating Maxwell's Equations as *causal*
equations. They are not. They are descriptive.

I have already stood on the Jefimenko soap box a few times, but will do so
again.

E does not cause H.
H does not cause E.

blackhead wrote:
On 25 May, 11:39, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On May 24, 12:40 pm, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:

What does the electric field of a uniformly increasing magnetic field
look like? Placing a charge at each point and measuring the force on
it would be one way to measure the E, yet why would it move in a
particular direction normal to B given the symmetry of the problem?
Thanks for the reply. I only weakly understand what you mean, but a
little research has shown that pseudo-vectors cause difficulties in
problems that appear symmetric which I will investigate further. Your
point is very subtle so you I suspect you have a background in
theoretical physics, right?
Nay, she has a background in mental illness. Hey, NOBODY but the
voices in her head understand what she means! Actually the
transformations of psevdovectors (Autyme always uses Roman spelling!)
have nothing to do with your question. [Big surprise!]

illness and wellness--but at least they're conorderly.

Maybe you also expect that lihtbeams flow
out a pipe in one direction like watter without regard to the pipe's
extension in three dimensions.

Autymn D. C. wrote:
illness and wellness--but at least they're conorderly.

Now THAT is the first comprehensible post you've ever made!

Maybe you also expect that lihtbeams flow
out a pipe in one direction like watter without regard to the pipe's
extension in three dimensions.

How many conorderly directions does a lihtbeam havve? How many Watts
does photonik watter carry?

How about you give some of the other patients a chance at the Internet
computer?