Dear readers,
I have been working on new electromagnetism since year 1997 and written
many articles which I sent to several journals of physics for publication. But all my articles were turned down. The main reason for the rejection is that I put the Maxwell’s theory into question. Normal physicists believe that the Maxwell’s theory is flawless and think that any challenge to it
is absurd.
Le 15/12/2023 à 19:40, Jim Pennino a écrit :
Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear readers,
I have been working on new electromagnetism since year 1997 and written
many articles which I sent to several journals of physics for publication. >>> But all my articles were turned down. The main reason for the rejection is >>> that I put the Maxwell’s theory into question. Normal physicists believe >>> that the Maxwell’s theory is flawless and think that any challenge to it >>> is absurd.
Which it is absent a repeatable experiment.
Do you have a repeatable, peer reviewed experiment that demonstrates a
flaw in Maxwell’s theory or are you just yet another crackpot?
The first experiment is «Continuous rotation of a circular coil
experiment» https://www.academia.edu/33604205/Continuous_rotation_of_a_circular_coil_experiment
The video of this experiment is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow .
In this video we see a round coil rotating in its plane. Because the coil
is round the driving force must be parallel to the wire, that is, to the current. This force cannot be Lorentz force which is perpendicular to the current. A detailed technical explanation is in the paper «Showing tangential magnetic force by experiment» .
Le 15/12/2023 à 23:55, Jim Pennino a écrit :
And the peer reviews of these experiments are at?
Not peer reviewed
Le 16/12/2023 à 01:43, Jim Pennino a écrit :
Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:Because this experiment challenges Maxwell which is not allowed by any journal. So, I have put every technical detail in «Showing tangential magnetic force by experiment» https://www.academia.edu/36652163/Showing_tangential_magnetic_force_by_experiment
Le 15/12/2023 à 23:55, Jim Pennino a écrit :
And the peer reviews of these experiments are at?
Not peer reviewed
And why is that?
http://pengkuanem.blogspot.com/2018/05/showing-tangential-magnetic-force-by.html
for anyone who is interested to be able to repeat it.
Le 16/12/2023 à 17:24, Jim Pennino a écrit :
Get back to us when someone successfully repeats the experiment.
I’m here to inform those people who would be interested to repeat this simple experiment which will give them a benefit as huge as going to the moon, because of Maxwell.
Le 16/12/2023 à 20:02, Jim Pennino a écrit :
Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 16/12/2023 à 17:24, Jim Pennino a écrit :
Get back to us when someone successfully repeats the experiment.
I’m here to inform those people who would be interested to repeat this >>> simple experiment which will give them a benefit as huge as going to the >>> moon, because of Maxwell.
Yeah, right.
What "benefit" might that be?
To be one of those who definitely contribute to revolutionize electromagnetism.
You know, Quantum mechanics has not been developed by
one person, but by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born or Erwin Schrödinger and many others.
Le 16/12/2023 à 20:40, Jim Pennino a écrit :
This is just a pile of arm waving.
How would it "revolutionize electromagnetism"?
What difference would it make in the real world?
What new technology would it enable?
My experiment shows that a magnetic force that is parallel to the test current rotates the coil, so parallel-to-current magnetic force exists.
But it is not described by Lorentz force law because Lorentz force is perpendicular to the test current.
In consequence, parallel-to-current magnetic force cannot be described
with magnetic field because Lorentz force equal the vectorial product of current I and magnetic field B. Then electromagnetism need a field that is more then B. This is a radical change in the theory of electromagnetism
and a revolution.
As for practical applications, they will come later as technique evolves. Even Faraday did not know what would be the applications of electricity. However, I have in mind an ionic propeller for spacecraft. Ion flow is an electric current which can be pushed by parallel-to-current magnetic
force.
Also, the magnetic confinement of plasma in Tokamak is designed with
Lorentz force law which does not work with parallel-to-current magnetic force. But this force really matters for high temperature ions which bite into the wall. So, parallel-to-current magnetic force will surely improve
the design and the work of nuclear fusion apparatus
Le 16/12/2023 à 23:03, Jim Pennino a écrit :
Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
My experiment shows that a magnetic force that is parallel to the test
current rotates the coil, so parallel-to-current magnetic force exists.
But it is not described by Lorentz force law because Lorentz force is
perpendicular to the test current.
In consequence, parallel-to-current magnetic force cannot be described
with magnetic field because Lorentz force equal the vectorial product of >>> current I and magnetic field B. Then electromagnetism need a field that is >>> more then B. This is a radical change in the theory of electromagnetism
and a revolution.
Yet more arm waving.
I do not see what is and what is not arm waving for you. I feel that if
the thing I say is already understood and accepted by you it is not arm waving, if you do not accept, it is arm waving. Imagine that you read the theory of relativity, the book does not arm wave, but if it is Einstein
who tells you that time slows down and that you have no idea about relativity, then he is arm waving.
I said that parallel-to-current magnetic force exists. It is arm waving
for you. For you to accept this idea, I have to teach the whole theory
which cannot be done here. However, parallel-to-current magnetic force is shown by experiment and is true. I do not know how to explain it without
you thinking I’m arm waving.
What you describe is NOT a propeller but a rocket, and ion rockets have
been around for many decades.
So what would change?
Yes, ion rockets have been around for many decades. But ion rocket that is propelled by parallel-to-current magnetic force does not. Is internal combustion engine not new because steam engine have been around for many decades? Internal combustion engines use petrol while steam engines use steam. So, ion rocket that is propelled by parallel-to-current magnetic
force is a new idea, although it is not sure that it will work.
Also, the magnetic confinement of plasma in Tokamak is designed with
Lorentz force law which does not work with parallel-to-current magnetic
force. But this force really matters for high temperature ions which bite >>> into the wall. So, parallel-to-current magnetic force will surely improve >>> the design and the work of nuclear fusion apparatus
Ions which bite?
Yes, hot plasma melts spot of the wall of the chamber of a Tokamak.
Let us try to agree on something that is not Hand-waving. Here is my experiment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow
The coil in this experiment rotates in its plane. Do you agree with that?
Le 18/12/2023 à 22:08, Jim Pennino a écrit :
I don't care.
My bottom line is that if there were "other" hitherto unknown magnetic
forces, they would be visible with iron filings on a piece of paper.
It is OK that you don’t care about my experiment and the parallel-to-current magnetic force which are the subject of our
discussion. If someone does a thing he does not care, the thing is
worthless for him and he waste his time in doing it. Then have you wasted your time? For what purpose?
Le 19/12/2023 à 18:07, Jim Pennino a écrit :
My bottom line is that if there were "other" magnetic forces, they
would be visible with iron filings on a piece of paper.
Your bottom line has two things: magnetic forces and iron filings. So, for you iron filings defines magnetic forces, in other words, magnetic forces
are equivalent to iron filings.
Any vectorial quantities have two components: that is parallel to current
and that is perpendicular to current. Iron filings are arranged by Lorentz force which is perpendicular to current. The component parallel to current does not act on iron filings, so you voluntarily disregard the parallel component and you choose to be blind on it.
You could argue that parallel component does not exist. But, is it that
the parallel component really does not exist in the world or your choice
for it not to exist?
Le 21/12/2023 à 00:33, Jim Pennino a écrit :
Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
Le 19/12/2023 à 18:07, Jim Pennino a écrit :
My bottom line is that if there were "other" magnetic forces, they
would be visible with iron filings on a piece of paper.
Your bottom line has two things: magnetic forces and iron filings. So, for >>> you iron filings defines magnetic forces, in other words, magnetic forces >>> are equivalent to iron filings.
Utter, childish, nonsense.
Any vectorial quantities have two components: that is parallel to current >>> and that is perpendicular to current. Iron filings are arranged by Lorentz >>> force which is perpendicular to current. The component parallel to current >>> does not act on iron filings, so you voluntarily disregard the parallel
component and you choose to be blind on it.
Gibberish.
If your component parallel to current does not act on iron filings, then
it will not act on anything, including ions.
You could argue that parallel component does not exist. But, is it that
the parallel component really does not exist in the world or your choice >>> for it not to exist?
More gibberish.
You have a disrespectful manner of speaking.
You seem like a poorly
educated child who shouts while adult discuss issue logically with
civility and politeness. You will be surely more angry now.
Le 21/12/2023 à 03:48, Jim Pennino a écrit :
Respect is something that is earned.
So, you recognize that you do not respect people who has not earned
respect, that is, you disrespect openly almost everyone, which is exactly
the temper you show.
You flatter yourself if you think your gibberish makes me angry.
You have not yet given a direct answer to any question put to you.
When I asked you: “Here is my experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9162Qw-wNow
The coil in this experiment rotates in its plane. Do you agree with
that?”
Your answer was: “I don't care”. Do you call this a direct answer?
Le 21/12/2023 à 16:48, Jim Pennino a écrit :
Kuan Peng <titang78@gmail.com> wrote:
Your answer was: “I don't care”. Do you call this a direct answer?
Yep.
Your “Yep” tells that you are cheating. My question was: “Do you
agree with that?” which admits only two possible answer: Yes and No. You answered “I don't care” which is neither of them. So, you answered
with nonsense. Suppose I ask you: “Are you dead”? You answer: “I
don't care”. This answer is ridiculous. If you give an answer, then you
are not dead. So, we can work out your real answer from the cheating “I don't care” which is “No, I do not agree”, that is, you think “the coil does not rotates” which is completely wrong.
From your “Yep” you show that you have a dishonest personality and you cheat.
According to you, your newly discovered force has no effect on iron
filings so how could it possibly effect anything else?
I told you that the newly discovered force makes the coil rotate. You
shouted back: “Nonsense”. Then no conversation is possible anymore.
You have cut the discussion with your vulgar “nonsense, gibberish”,
which is not contrary to your dishonest personality.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 302 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 124:39:27 |
| Calls: | 6,769 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,299 |
| Messages: | 5,376,814 |
| Posted today: | 2 |