Re: TC Secondary Currents - was ( Experimental Help - Terry?)

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "Terry Fritz" <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>

Hi Paul,

At 08:41 AM 3/7/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi Terry,
>
>> Richard's simple challenge of displacement currents seems to have
>> caught us without being able to provide experimental evidence.
>
>Well, if you encourage cranks onto the list, you've got to deal with
>them.

No one here is a "crank" ;-)  We all come from widely different backgrounds
and perspectives and see things in many different ways.  Often we look at
the same object and interpret different things and then argue that the
other person's interpretation is wrong.  It is much like talking about a
cup in two languages and arguing that because the other person does not
speak the word for cup like we do that they must not know what a cup is...

>
>You won't be able to unequivocally demonstrate dD/dt by looking for
>the resulting B between the plates of a cap.  Ampere's circuital
>law means that the resulting field is indistinguishable from the
>B field produced by the conduction current into the plates, at least
>when in close proximity to the capacitor.

It does appear that we don't have a way to do this :-(

> 
>> I am grasping for the simple way out...
>
>As I've already pointed out, if it were not for the term dD/dt
>in Maxwell's equation Curl H = J + dD/dt, radio waves would not
>exist.  

Actually, radio waves existed before the equations :o)   I think there is
some concern that because there is an equation that explains something,
that the equation is not "proof" of underlying principles.  Of course, if
the equation works 100% of the time for predicting behavior, it is very
useful.  If an equation can predict things that were previously unknown, it
tends to go far beyond a simple tool to predict observed behavior and
attracts thinking that the behavior is proven by the equation and not that
the equation is proven by the behavior. 

>The onus is on the cranks to explain EM wave propagation
>(preferably to a physics forum, not us!) without this coupling term.
>
>So, just measure the coupling between say two dipoles several
>wavelengths apart, and show that it is vastly higher than you would
>expect without the dD/dt term.

Of course, Maxwell's equations work perfectly in the perspective of
Maxwell's equations.  If one does not use Maxwell's equations, they may
seem odd.  I have never seen proof that any are not correct.  However, we
should not assume that things could change and their interpretation or
applications my someday be "qualified".

Chemists can pretty accurately tell you how much energy a quantity of metal
will produce when burned in oxygen.  Take away O2, and they would have
argued that only a nut would believe that heat could be produced by pure
metals in a vacuum with no oxygen present to burn them.  Of course, later
many radioactive metals produced heat in any conditions (in fact you can't
stop them).  Science of the day would have called this "cheating" or "Hey!
that's totally different".  The "nuts" just sit back with a big grin saying
"I told you so"...  While the present beliefs and opinion are fine and
sound, I don't think we should be blind to the fact that things change.  Of
course, in the case of hot metal, someone can stick a warm chunk of uranium
on your desk and say "right there it is!"  "explain that!!"...  We don't
have any obvious counter examples to Maxwell's equations to worry about
yet.  But if we ever do, we will not discount or change the equations, we
will simply qualify them as not applying in that case like we have done
with every other long standing equation or "law" that runs into an
exception.  Newton "proved" that p=mv.  Just like Einstein proved that
p=mv/(1-v^2/c^2).  I imagine if Newton were confronted with a fuzzy hair
fellow whining about a (1-v^2/c^2) term, he would have thrown that apple at
him :-)  However, to contradict established laws does not bestow one with
Einstein's vision either...  If you want to disprove an established law,
chances are you will get hit by a meteorite first...  And remember that
"todays" physical laws are far better thought out, and cross checked than
those of long ago since science hates exceptions and takes extraordinary
precautions to avoid them...

I think we should be a little open minded and wary of counter proofs and
exceptions.  Of course, unless there IS compelling proof, we don't have to
worry much.  In this case, I thought we would have compelling physical
proof of the displacement current's magnetic fields.  I was surprised we
fell a little short in the simple common man's experiment.  Of course, we
have nothing to worry about because we can ask for proof from the "other
side" that they do not exist.

>
>Getting on for 50% of the posts to the list at present seem to be
>wasted on this subject.  

It was not meant to be.  I think we all learned something (I did).  The
understanding of fundamental laws governing our spark toys is basic to our
hobby.  Thinking about them (even in controversy) brings us all closer to a
common understanding or at least "two" common understandings :-))

>Isn't it about time you wrapped it up,
>because it won't go anywhere useful?  

Yes...  We have reached a point were we cannot prove or disprove the
argument to solve it.  Thus we are only left with argument...

I still have one little thread of hope I am working on, but it is a long shot.

>Nobody on this list is qualified
>to rewrite basic physics.  Some of the postings are so inane that they
>must surely be trolls.  Such incredible arrogance leaves me
>gobsmacked:  I can't understand Maxwell's theory, therefore it must
>be wrong!

I guess only "I" see the "real" trolls and insane posts...  You don't know
what you're missing!! :-))))  "I" have found all the players in this thread
to be very qualified to present their points.  No one is arguing for the
sake of arguing.  They really believe in and are trying to prove their
positions.  Of course, talk is cheap and proof is rare...

Cheers,

	Terry


>--
>Paul Nicholson
>--
>