Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim

[Allcanadian]

@Em

Ok Im back ...

What is absurd is that AC thinks our explanations are absurd, obscuring his own initial absurdness which now has magnified to total absurdness, which now has taken on a life of its own, and is so strong that it pulls in more absurness, like this.

Absurdity is relative my friend...
more absurd than what we see on the news each night, or maybe primary transportation less than 15% efficient power generation under 50%, or one man burning a family to death because he does not agree with what they believe, or an illegal invasion of another country based on a lie killing 1.5 million innocent men, woman and children.... and nobody asks why?. More absurd than demanding growth which is unsustainable and can only end in our demise, or demanding profit no matter who may be killed or harmed in the process. Maybe as absurd as the man who states he is open minded then is overly critical of everyone who doesn't agree with his opinion.

No, you have it all backwards absurdity is the norm, it is the dream most strive for which binds them all and it is only the few who are willing to question everything including themselves who may see it for what it is.

AC

[BEP]

To quote myself:

It is a good idea to read original works and consider the exact context in which they were discovered.

EM,

"like this" ?

Like what?

The quotes I pulled from common physics text books and papers generated by various academia?

[EMdevices]

WW, that was refering to my own writing.  . Just poking some fun.

BTW I agree with what you said, but more so with what i said, imagine that! 

Pappas is thinking very superficially about a capacitor, and its fields. It appears from his diagrams of final velocity, that the electron has maintained its Ux velocity while adding a Uy component.  But due to fringe fields, on the edges, thats not so.  After all, these are conservative fields, so if you return the particle to its original location, net energy is zero.

EM

[PhysicsProf]

Any update on this Pappas' challenge?   

[Grumpy]

Pappas talks about the edge effects of the capacitor at the bottom of the page:

http://papimi.gr/osc.htm

[Mark Snoswell]

ah ha ... Hi - I'll make this comment here because this is where I was when I thought of this.

-- momentum of static fields is the question... So if you had a field in which a charged particle felt a steady force as it moved down a field gradient then you have a boring old constant field gradient - nothing exciting there. But you ask yourself, what is the implication of a field in which the moving charge experiences a changing force? -- of course you say that's a simple gradient field with all it's parallels to a mass in a radial gravitational field... ah, but what if the radial electric field is not radially symmetrical so if you a spherical integration you find a net force vector -- , then you have to conclude that the generator of the field, weather it appeared static or not, possessed a net, and non-zero, momentum... again you smartly deduce that in a truly static system there will not be non-zero spherically integrated force ~ except under impulse conditions within a specified volume...

Please contact me if you can or have deduced the consequence

cheers
Mark.

[BEP]

Mark,

If you are up to it....

http://www.ate.uni-duisburg-essen.de/data/postgraduate_lecture/AJP_2009_Griffiths.pdf

In any case, angular momentum resulting from a particle motion through a static electric field causes that static electric field to do work, unlike the same resulting from a static magnetic field.

At least, that is the way it works in my experiments.

So, should there be any surprising consequences?

[PhysicsProf]

Mark,

If you are up to it....

http://www.ate.uni-duisburg-essen.de/data/postgraduate_lecture/AJP_2009_Griffiths.pdf

In any case, angular momentum resulting from a particle motion through a static electric field causes that static electric field to do work, unlike the same resulting from a static magnetic field.

At least, that is the way it works in my experiments.

So, should there be any surprising consequences?

Interesting.    Can you tell us more about your experiments?
Also, you're saying that a static electric field does work, whereas a static magnetic field does not -- right?

Finally, do your results uphold Dr Pappas' claims, or not?

[BEP]

Interesting.    Can you tell us more about your experiments?
Also, you're saying that a static electric field does work, whereas a static magnetic field does not -- right?

Finally, do your results uphold Dr Pappas' claims, or not?

The experiments I referred to had to do with beam deflection on the CRT of an old oscilloscope. I noticed that the permanent magnets used to control centering did no work to center the beam (obviously). On the other hand, the HV plates and display deflection circuitry used a sizable amount of current to draw the trace.
I played with homebrew deflection yokes to eliminate the HV circuits and found that the magnetic deflection circuitry used the same amount of power for a given set of patterns whether there was a beam to deflect or not. The HV plate deflection scheme power usage varied with the complexity and duration of the trace.

I had enough doubts about the differences to repeat the experiments with NIST calibrated test equipment from work. My results weren't off by much.

My conclusion was that magnetic fields do no work on traveling particles even though the particles experience a change in angular momentum. The same change in angular momentum, as a result of traveling through an electrostatic field, uses energy stored in the electrostatic field. It also seems to be possible to change the electrostatic charge level (increase or decrease) by changing the angle of the driven beam WRT the deflection plate field.

That was about 20 years ago.

Dr. Pappas seems to think the electrostatic fields use no additional energy when they cause deflection.

Perhaps, he is correct. All I see is when such claims are made it is usually because 'hidden momentum' isn't understood or considered. When I think I understand it completely I let you all know.

Don't hold your breath 

[PhysicsProf]

Thanks, WW.  I appreciate your doing actual experiments to get your answers as you showed here.   

[muDped]

Dr. Pappas seems to think the electrostatic fields use no additional energy when they cause deflection.

I wonder how Dr. Pappas would explain the operation
of the Magnetron?  Or the Traveling Wave Tube?

Granted, both types of fields are at work there
but each plays an important role.