Unfortunately your post#12 was a century and a half behind the times at best and factually incorrect at worst, as I pointed out in my post#33.
You have provided nothing to back it up or attempted to discuss it.

Here is a model thread.
A fine example of good communication and friendly cooperation on all sides quickly achieving a satisfactory outcome.

http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/t...load-voltage-app-x-factor.104394/#post-791924

I don't recall asking for un-cooperation, if anything, from the very beginning, the request was a create a healthy discussion on this particular paper, which other refer to as "paper". Everyone took a very defensive attitude as if they were the guardians of proper scientific knowledge, and anyone else suggesting to the contrary must be ridiculed.

Professor Francisco J Muller did the experiment and came up with different EXPERIMENTAL results which contrast with what Albert Einstein has said.

Now, are you up to it, to comment. If Professor Francisco J Muller is right, can you formulate other famous equations, similar in impact as Albert Einstein's.

 

That doesn't alter the fact that what you posted was factually incorrect.

And that all I, and others, have done is ask for you to put it right and tell us what you actually want to say or ask about it.

 

That doesn't alter the fact that what you posted was factually incorrect.

..... what is factually, incorrect. The paper, the experiment, the experimental results, the conclusion, ......... whaaaaaaaat ?????

 

Did you read my post#33

All this is incorrect

Long time ago, it was thought and is currently taught at institutions all over the planet, that an emf could be created across a conductor if there is relative movement between conductor and magnetic field, only.

So, these teachings put almost everyone in a logic loop of relative movement between conductor and magnetic field = emf across conductor. The implication of these teachings are, if no relative movement then no emf. And everyone went on their happy ways and designed new equipment and taught this pragmatism. To the extent that some members of this forum decided to write textbooks on the subject to "indoctrinate" everyone on this new science.

But one day, this dude comes along and decides to experiment in a different way, and .....walla, emf across a conductor WITHOUT relative movement between conductor and magnetic field.

 

Do the experiment yourself and find out. Do you think the professor is lying .......


On the other hand, if it was a known fact, why it did not surface then or sooner than the publication of this thesis.

Otherwise, it is not incorrect.


Can you find a textbook that teaches the findings of the professor.

......oh, with respect to your post #33. Clearly, you don't understand what the professor is saying.

To put it slightly different. The conductor AT ALL TIMES is immersed in exactly the same magnetic field or the magnetic field DOES NOT change, yet an emf is produced. So, it contradicts, the 2 equations given above, post #33.
I am not saying that post #33 is incorrect, more correctly, I should have said, they are not absolute because under different conditions, an emf is observed even when there is no relative motion or changing magnetic field.

 

i mentioned in my earlier post EXACTLY what it was the "Professor" claims to have discovered. however, he makes the fundamental mistake most people do and assumes the magnetic "field" is rigidly attached to the atomic structure of the magnet and naturally should "rotate" in a circular fashion when the magnet is rotated on an axis through the center of it pole faces and perpendicular to those faces. It was proven long ago that such rotation does not occur. the magnetic field is, in this case created by the arrangement of atoms in the magnet but is not changed in any detectable way by the rotation of those atoms about the axis through the pole faces. SO, the copper disc actually is moving at a right angle to a stationary magnetic field created by a magnet which is itself rigidly attached to the rotating copper disc.

 

The question here at AAC is not about what the professor may say somewhere else, but about what you say here.

You did not say anything about a non time varying magnetic field only about relative motion.

In fact your wrote it bold "No relative motion, no EMF"

Yet I showed another way to generate EMF without motion!

So after correcting that omission let us move on to your statement of what you think the professor actually said.

I am labouring this point because professors are not immune from fiddling the figures, witness the enormous scandal in 2010 by Harvard professors Reinhart and Rogoff, which made the world recession far deeper and longer than it perhaps needed to be.

This professor, may be genuinely mistaken, as Kermit says, or he may be lying, or he may have found something so let us have a simple statement of what he has (allegedly) found to discuss.

 

Refer to PART II EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS of the paper

 

The question here at AAC is not about what the professor may say somewhere else, but about what you say here.

You did not say anything about a non time varying magnetic field only about relative motion.

In fact your wrote it bold "No relative motion, no EMF"

Yet I showed another way to generate EMF without motion!

So after correcting that omission let us move on to your statement of what you think the professor actually said.

I am labouring this point because professors are not immune from fiddling the figures, witness the enormous scandal in 2010 by Harvard professors Reinhart and Rogoff, which made the world recession far deeper and longer than it perhaps needed to be.

This professor, may be genuinely mistaken, as Kermit says, or he may be lying, or he may have found something so let us have a simple statement of what he has (allegedly) found to discuss.

To quote, the professor:

"
- - - In spite of the absence of relative motion between magnet and wire a potential difference is induced between 0 and R due to the ABSOLUTE ROTATION of the system (Ref. 1). This contradicts Einstein's statement at the beginning of his 1905 paper. It does not violate Special Relativity, however, since this theory is not applicable to rotating systems."

Again, I repeat, do the experiment, yourself. This is the reason why papers are published, so others can repeat the experiment.

 

no YOU refer to the paper and post what you think is said in support of your side of the discussion, and while you are formulating your reply please include a clear descriptive sentence or two of what your side of the discussion actually is. I feel like I'm debating an empty chair.

 

Ok, good. Thsnk you.
As I just explained above there IS movement between conductor and magnetic field. The fundemental claim of PROOF is disproven already

 

Ok, good. Thsnk you.
As I just explained above there IS movement between conductor and magnetic field. The fundemental claim of PROOF is disproven already

What is your explanation of fig 3 and comments above and below if the fundamental PROOF is disproven already.

 

no YOU refer to the paper and post what you think is said in support of your side of the discussion, and while you are formulating your reply please include a clear descriptive sentence or two of what your side of the discussion actually is. I feel like I'm debating an empty chair.

I am making a general statement, that in addition to the well known ways of producing EMF, there is a another way which does not require relative motion.

 

correct. there is another way. Increasing or decreasing the intensity of the field works and nothing moved. transformers utilize this method.

Is there another? If there is, tell us what it is. Then the discussion can finally start.

 

correct. there is another way. Increasing or decreasing the intensity of the field works and nothing moved. transformers utilize this method.

Is there another? If there is, tell us what it is. Then the discussion can finally start.

I have already responded to this, post #45.

 

i already explained that a magnet can rotate about an axis through its pole faces and it does NOT create a rotating magnetic field. the field is stationary even when the magnet is in motion. Therefore relative motion exists between the conductor and field. Stop ignoring this fact. That is the mistake the "professor" makes in his opening page.

 

i already explained that a magnet can rotate about an axis through its pole faces and it does NOT create a rotating magnetic field. the field is stationary even when the magnet is in motion. Therefore relative motion exists between the conductor and field. Stop ignoring this fact. That is the mistake the "professor" makes in his opening page.

If that is the case, a linear accelerating system, statement below fig 3, should have a emf across the conductor. Because, it would be physically impossible for the magnetic field to catch up with its magnet, and therefore, the conductor would be cutting across magnetic lines and therefore produce emf. Yet no emf is produced.

What is the difference between a linear accelerating system, in so far as the movement of the field in relation to its magnet and a rotating magnet and its field, both are accelerating or even in the case of rectilinear constant motion.

Unless, of course, the professor is wrong again.

 

...Because, it would be physically impossible for the magnetic field to catch up with its magnet, and therefore, the conductor would be cutting across magnetic lines and therefore produce emf. Yet no emf is produced...

what proof is offered that supports the claim you make that such an action is impossible

 

Thanks for that. I will use it when people think my estimates are wrong. More importantly, I will use it when I need to re-animate someone paralyzed with fear of making an estimate. Wrong isn't bad, it is just a starting point.

With all this talking (I don't even consider this a discussion) I was somehow reminded of Mr Pauli's quote "It is not only not right, it is not even wrong"

 

CONCENTRATE on the EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.

Are you joking? What experiment and what results? That write-up does not come remotely close to the standards of a technical paper. Where are the Materials and Methods? Where are the detailed descriptions of the instruments used, the methods followed, the materials used, the techniques for measuring magnetic field, controlling voltage and current and on and on and ON?

Where's his analysis of variance? Oh wait, there wasn't any. Ridiculous.

His write-up would get a low grade at a high school science fair. If he can't be bothered to better document and support his claims, why should we be asked to waste time discussing them?