Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw

Poll

Question: Do you want to read more about F6FLT's theory of electrodynamics ? (Voting closed: 2026-01-25, 00:02:38)

Yes

4 (80%)

No

1 (20%)

Total Members Voted: 5

Author Topic: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw (Read 19445 times)

Topic Options

Verpies

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #100 on: 2026-01-07, 11:22:15 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: partzman on 2019-01-29, 14:43:39

I would add to this that only an electric field can accelerate charges...

Only if you play the word game that a moving magnetic field generates an electric field and it is only this electric field that accelerates the charges.

Quote from: partzman on 2019-01-29, 14:43:39

For a long time I was under the misconception that a magnetic field could move and/or accelerate charges but it doesn't.

What changed you mind ?

Verpies

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #101 on: 2026-01-07, 11:22:40 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019-01-10, 10:21:09

Hi All

A few years ago, while visiting the park of the castle of Le Clos Lucé, France, where Leonardo da Vinci, invited by King Francis I in 1516, finished the last 4 years of his life, I had discovered the model of an invention (see photo) that is not Leonardo's but that he had taken from Archimedes, and which is Archimedes' screw.

Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw

By turning, with a crank, a tube wound helically along an inclined cylinder whose end is immersed in water, the water can be easily raised.

I wonder how to adapt the idea to the electromagnetic domain. This would make it possible to obtain a direct current from a rotating movement, thus from an alternating current, or a constant field from a variable field.
The idea does not seem to have been studied. The closest I have found is this patent, but it is a motor and I'm interested in solid state.

You could use the magnetic Lorentz Force (F = q⋅v × B) to unidirectionally accelerate electrically charged particles (e.g. electrons, ions, charged dust, etc...) without any need for a high voltage power supply.

Once you obtain a uniform motion of charges, you have DC.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019-01-10, 16:39:59

I forgot the MHD. I agree, it's really the same principle. I would just like the system to be solid state. In MHD, forces act on the charges of a conductive fluid to provide relative motion.

In MHD¹ there needs to be current flowing through a conductive liquid for the stationary magnetic field to exert a Lorentz force on it.
In MHD² the electric current provides the motion of the charges and the stationary magnetic flux converts that motion to the Lorentz force.

However, the motion of charges (provided by the electric current) is superfluous when it is the magnetic flux that is moving.
In the end, it does not matter which one is moving - it can be the charged particle or the magnetic flux ...or both. Motion is relative.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019-01-10, 16:39:59

I'm looking for a way so that the forces on the charges provide a current.
We are in 3D: an electric field along X to move electrons back and forth...

Yes, you could accelerate electrons longitudinally with a strong electric field gradient in order to create the relative motion between the stationary transverse magnetic flux and the electrons,
...or you can just move the transverse magnetic flux, while keeping the electrons stationary. The resulting Lorentz force is the same because motion is relative.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019-01-10, 16:39:59

...to move electrons back and forth in a current I along X, a transverse magnetic field B along Y, synchronous with I, and which deflects electrons perpendicularly, i. e. along Z, always in the same direction.
Therefore, we should detect a current along Z, a kind of full wave rectified current.

Yes, you could do it like this but it is unnecessarily complicated.
BTW: This arrangement also occurs in the self-squaring Hall Effect in solid conductors/semiconductors where the solid Hall plate is subjected to a transverse alternating magnetic flux, which is in phase with the alternating electric current flowing through that plate. As the result, a unidirectional Hall voltage is generated from an alternating current that supplies both the Hall plate and the coil which generates the transverse magnetic field.

However, you do not need to move the electrons in order for the Lorentz force to be manifested. You can unidirectionally accelerate even stationary electrons (or electrons moving randomly) by subjecting them to a moving transverse unidirectional magnetic flux.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2019-01-29, 11:32:20

A magnetic field can only deflect moving charges.

Motion is relative. It only matters that they move with respect to each other.
Stationary charges can be accelerated by the moving magnetic flux, too.

partzman	Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #102 on: 2026-01-07, 16:02:18 »
Group: Experimentalist Hero Member Posts: 2232	Quote from: Verpies on 2026-01-07, 11:22:15 Only if you play the word game that a moving magnetic field generates an electric field and it is only this electric field that accelerates the charges. What changed you mind ? As I understand, a moving magnetic field can change the direction of a moving charge but not accelerate a moving charge, Pm

Verpies

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #103 on: 2026-01-07, 16:20:53 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: partzman on 2026-01-07, 16:02:18

As I understand, a moving magnetic field can change the direction of a moving charge but not accelerate a moving charge,

In physics, changes of direction are considered accelerations. For example: motion around a circle is considered an accelerated motion even if the angular velocity is constant.

That was just the physics jargon, but you had straight-line acceleration in mind, didn't you ?
What is your opinion about a moving magnetic flux accelerating a stationary charge ?

partzman

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #104 on: 2026-01-07, 20:38:44 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 2232

Quote from: Verpies on 2026-01-07, 16:20:53

In physics, changes of direction are considered accelerations. For example: motion around a circle is considered an accelerated motion even if the angular velocity is constant.

That was just the physics jargon, but you had straight-line acceleration in mind, didn't you ?
What is your opinion about a moving magnetic flux accelerating a stationary charge ?

Technically, a moving magnetic flux by itself will not move a stationary charge however, as you point out, a moving magnetic flux can create an electric field. This electric field can then move a stationary charge. IE, a magnet passing a wire.

Pm

Edit: There is an exception to this however in a transformer with a constant current in the secondary.

« Last Edit: 2026-01-07, 20:46:31 by partzman »

Verpies

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #105 on: 2026-01-07, 22:19:05 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: partzman on 2026-01-07, 20:38:44

Technically, a moving magnetic flux by itself will not move a stationary charge however, as you point out, a moving magnetic flux can create an electric field. This electric field can then move a stationary charge. i.e.: a magnet passing a wire.

This would mean that a moving magnetic flux cannot accelerate a stationary charge directly but it can accelerate the charge indirectly through an electric field acting as an intermediary.
Since there is a 1:1 correspondence between the changing/moving magnetic flux and the electric field, arguing whether the influence of the moving flux on charged particles is direct or through an intermediary, is a losing proposition ...unless an experiment can be devised to illustrate the difference. And at the moment, I can't think of any.

It does make the Lorentz force equation very awkward, though.
In its expanded form, this equation is a sum of the parallel force due to electric field (F=q⋅E) and the perpendicular^* force (F=q⋅v × B) due to the magnetic field vector (B) and the relative velocity (v) between the transverse^* component of the magnetic field (B) and the charged particle (q).

The full expression for the Lorentz force is:
F = q⋅E + q⋅v × B
or
F = q⋅(E + v × B)

Without the existence of direct influence of changing/moving flux on charged particles, the Lorentz force term (q⋅v × B) looks silly because the (v) refers to the relative velocity between the transverse component of the magnetic field (B) and the charged particle (q).
Note that (v) denotes a relative velocity between the charged particle and the transverse magnetic flux, thus it does not matter whether you see the charge moving or the magnetic flux moving, ...or both. All that matters is that they are moving relative to each other.

This begs the following questions:
Q1) What happens when they are both moving at the same speed in the same direction ?
Q2) Does the changing/moving magnetic flux still generate an electric field ?
Q3) If the answer to Q2 is "yes" - does that electric field accelerate the charged particle ?

The answer to the 1^st question is: "Their relative velocity is zero thus the term (q⋅v × B) evaluates to zero, too"
The answer to the 2^nd question is: "It always does when the magnetic field is changing/moving ...however the magnetic field is not moving wrt the charged particle even if it is moving wrt you".
I'll let you answer the 3^rd question...

In the end it does not matter whether you explain the Lorentz Force through an intermediary or not.
All that matters for experiments is that subjecting an electrically charged particle to a changing/moving magnetic flux, in the end causes that particle to be accelerated perpendicularly to that flux ...and it does not matter whether that particle appeared stationary to you initially, as long as there was a relative motion between the transverse component of the magnetic flux and the charged particle.
Do we agree on that ?

Quote from: partzman on 2026-01-07, 20:38:44

There is an exception to this however in a transformer with a constant current in the secondary.

Can you elaborate ?

^* I wrote "perpendicular" and "transverse" because of the cross product of the two vectors (v × B).

partzman

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #106 on: 2026-01-09, 16:48:56 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 2232

Quote from: Verpies on 2026-01-07, 22:19:05

This begs the following questions:
Q1) What happens when they are both moving at the same speed in the same direction ?
Q2) Does the changing/moving magnetic flux still generate an electric field ?
Q3) If the answer to Q2 is "yes" - does that electric field accelerate the charged particle ?

The answer to the 1^st question is: "Their relative velocity is zero thus the term (q⋅v × B) evaluates to zero, too"
The answer to the 2^nd question is: "It always does when the magnetic field is changing/moving ...however the magnetic field is not moving wrt the charged particle even if it is moving wrt you".
I'll let you answer the 3^rd question...

My answer is yes if the magnetically generated electric field is positive.

Quote

In the end it does not matter whether you explain the Lorentz Force through an intermediary or not.
All that matters for experiments is that subjecting an electrically charged particle to a changing/moving magnetic flux, in the end causes that particle to be accelerated perpendicularly to that flux ...and it does not matter whether that particle appeared stationary to you initially, as long as there was a relative motion between the transverse component of the magnetic flux and the charged particle.
Do we agree on that ?

Yes.

Quote

Can you elaborate ?

IMO, it would appear via experimentation that the charges in a constant current application as described, are not accelerated by the magnetically generated E-Field.

« Last Edit: 2026-01-09, 16:49:41 by partzman »

Verpies

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #107 on: 2026-01-09, 21:26:15 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: partzman on 2026-01-09, 16:48:56

My answer is yes if the magnetically generated electric field is positive.

But why only positive electric field causes acceleration? Don't negative electric fields repel negative charges and attract positive charges, too ?
Do you agree that attraction or repulsion is a force ? Do you remember that a force always causes acceleration unless it is opposed by an equal force in the opposite direction ?

Notice that the only way the polarity of this magnetically generated E-field can reverse wrt you is for your velocity wrt the magnetic field to reverse direction, too. This is because the polarity of the magnetically generated E-field is determined by the cross product of v × B so this polarity is dependent only on the direction of v since the B-field does not change its direction in this scenario.

Therefore, when you restrict the polarity of the magnetically generated E-field, then you also restrict the direction of magnetic field's motion wrt you.

By answering "yes" to Q3^* with the restriction for only one electric field polarity (positive), you are effectively stating that:
1) a charged particle gets accelerated by a magnetic field even when there is no relative motion between them (conditions in Q1^* imply v=0).
2) and this acceleration happens only when the magnetically generated E-field has one polarity wrt you but not the other, which means one direction of B-field's motion wrt you but not the other (since the polarity of that magnetically generated E-field depends only on the direction of magnetic field's motion wrt you).

Do you really mean that ?
Have you noticed where the FoR got switched ?

^* Q1, Q2, Q3 refer to the questions posed in my previous post.

Quote from: partzman on 2026-01-09, 16:48:56

IMO, it would appear via experimentation that the charges in a constant current application as described, are not accelerated by the magnetically generated E-Field.

Is it because the CC power supply locks them to the the current stream that it enforces ?

partzman

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #108 on: 2026-01-10, 16:29:45 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 2232

Quote from: Verpies on 2026-01-09, 21:26:15

But why only positive electric field causes acceleration? Don't negative electric fields repel negative charges and attract positive charges, too ?
Do you agree that attraction or repulsion is a force ? Do you remember that a force always causes acceleration unless it is opposed by an equal force in the opposite direction ?

Notice that the only way the polarity of this magnetically generated E-field can reverse wrt you is for your velocity wrt the magnetic field to reverse direction, too. This is because the polarity of the magnetically generated E-field is determined by the cross product of v × B so this polarity is dependent only on the direction of v since the B-field does not change its direction in this scenario.

Therefore, when you restrict the polarity of the magnetically generated E-field, then you also restrict the direction of magnetic field's motion wrt you.

By answering "yes" to Q3^* with the restriction for only one electric field polarity (positive), you are effectively stating that:
1) a charged particle gets accelerated by a magnetic field even when there is no relative motion between them (conditions in Q1^* imply v=0).
2) and this acceleration happens only when the magnetically generated E-field has one polarity wrt you but not the other, which means one direction of B-field's motion wrt you but not the other (since the polarity of that magnetically generated E-field depends only on the direction of magnetic field's motion wrt you).

Do you really mean that ?
Have you noticed where the FoR got switched ?

Since it was not stated, I assumed the charge to be positive in which case the result would be an acceleration with a positive electric field. Of course, a negative charge with a positive electric field would result in de-acceleration. I do not disagree with all the various cases you stated above!

Quote

^* Q1, Q2, Q3 refer to the questions posed in my previous post.
Is it because the CC power supply locks them to the the current stream that it enforces ?

If the constant current in the secondary feeds a constant voltage source equal to the secondary voltage, then the current remains constant. If the constant current in the secondary is connected to a large inductor Lx containing the same current magnitude and Lx>>Ls, then again the current in the secondary will remain constant for all practical purposes.

Pm

Verpies

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #109 on: 2026-01-10, 19:23:21 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: partzman on 2026-01-10, 16:29:45

Of course, a negative charge with a positive electric field would result in de-acceleration.

In physics jargon, deceleration and changing direction are both accelerations.

Yes, a deceleration is considered a type of acceleration. ...a negative one, in the case you seem to be suggesting.
Yes, changing direction is considered a type of acceleration in more than 1 dimension... including a negative acceleration in one dimension and positive acceleration in another.
So in a car, the brake pedal, the gas pedal, throttle and the steering wheel are all considered acceleration controls by science.

I am not making this up.

partzman

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #110 on: 2026-01-10, 20:24:10 »

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member

Posts: 2232

Quote from: Verpies on 2026-01-10, 19:23:21

In physics jargon, deceleration and changing direction are both accelerations.

Yes, a deceleration is considered a type of acceleration. ...a negative one, in the case you seem to be suggesting.
Yes, changing direction is considered a type of acceleration in more than 1-dimension... including a negative acceleration in one dimension and positive acceleration in another.
So in a car, the brake pedal, the gas pedal, throttle and the steering wheel are all considered acceleration controls by science.

I am not making this up.

OK, I was not aware of this!

Pm

Verpies

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #111 on: 2026-01-13, 10:53:22 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

There is one more that might surprise you.

Below is an animation of the Lorentz force acting on two oppositely charged particles.
Despite that these particles move in opposite directions along the same line, according to mainstream Physics their collective motion constitutes current in one direction (because current is the product of charge and velocity ...and the particles are oppositely charged).

Two oppositely charged particles acceleratoed in opposite directions by the Lorenz force caused by the magnetic field of a moving permanent magnet ( C-shaped ).
Given enough time, these particles will slow down, reverse and attract back together.
( Click on the animation to magnify it )

F6FLT

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #112 on: 2026-01-13, 22:20:42 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2435

The magnetic field is simply an effect of the relative velocity of charges on their electric fields.
If a charge is moving relative to me, I see a magnetic field.
If the charge is stationary and I am moving relative to it, I see a magnetic field, while another observer attached to the charge does not. The magnetic field has no physical reality, unlike the electric field. It is the worst model of electromagnetism, yet so deeply ingrained in our thinking. So much so that some people see it as a reality.

The only reality for the charge is E, the only field capable of setting it in motion by virtue of F=qE. For the charge, the field B does not exist when it is deflected by the Lorentz force; only a field E, the only reality it sees. B, such that E=V×B, is simply what the stationary observer says exists in space to explain the deflection.

I'm still working on this and have made progress. I've just concluded that a rotating charged ring, which we know creates a magnetic field because it's a rotating current, cannot produce induction in a coupled circuit when its rotation oscillates around the axis, even though there's a variable magnetic field (B) and a change in flux, which contradicts Maxwell-Faraday's law.

I think I've grasped the actual conditions for creating an inductive electric field compatible with Maxwell-Faraday, which must have its scope limited to these conditions alone. This has led me to the idea that it's possible to induce a direct current, and I hope to find a feasible experiment to verify this.

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Verpies

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #113 on: 2026-01-14, 01:42:37 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

The electric and magnetic fields are two sides of the same coin.
It is true that they transform into each other depending on the velocity of the reference frame.

However this does not mean that one is more real than the other ...or more fundamental ...or that one can be derived from the other but not vice versa.
I know how to argue these transformations from the perspective of the mainstream electrodynamics - see the copy of my answers on another forum.
To other members: This is also a good video about electric fields.

You might have developed your own paradigm where you take the charge (and its electric field) as an axiom and derive everything else from it (except space and time, gravity and some nuclear stuff) and that might feel really dear to your heart, but the choice of that axiom does not make it intrinsically fundamental nor complete. Just because you can describe the divergence of an electric field does not mean that you can define what a field is and why two opposite charges attract (only, how they attract).
I have developed my own paradigm where the electric field is the one-dimensional deviation of our frame of reference created by the motion of matter inward in three dimensions of space and time and the magnetic field is the two-dimensional deviation of the same, and the gravitational field is the three-dimensional deviation of the same.

We can argue theories till the cows come home.
What interests me more is whether you agree that the empirical acceleration of the charged particles is correctly depicted in this animation regardles whether you consider the magnetic field of that moving permanent magnet real or not. This is because that behavior has direct bearing on the experiments performed on this forum.

For example, how does the following magnet carousel influence electrically charged particles that are in the annular path of these rotating air-gaps (of PMs) ?:

Smudge

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #114 on: 2026-01-14, 08:30:45 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2332

Quote from: Verpies on 2026-01-14, 01:42:37

For example, how does the following magnet carousel influence electrically charged particles that are in the annular path of these rotating air-gaps (of PMs) ?:

My answer. The ring of charged particles (e.g. a circle of copper wire that is electrically charged) lying on that horizontal surface will experience a vertical force within the moving gaps of the horseshoe magnets. That could lift the thin wire against gravity demonstrating waves moving around the ring.

Smudge

Smudge

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #115 on: 2026-01-14, 08:47:29 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2332

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026-01-13, 22:20:42

I've just concluded that a rotating charged ring, which we know creates a magnetic field because it's a rotating current, cannot produce induction in a coupled circuit when its rotation oscillates around the axis, even though there's a variable magnetic field (B) and a change in flux, which contradicts Maxwell-Faraday's law.

Presumably you have used relativity formulas to come to this conclusion. Can you tell us these formulas?

Smudge

Verpies	Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #116 on: 2026-01-14, 09:06:45 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 4513	Quote from: Smudge on 2026-01-14, 08:30:45 The ring of charged particles (e.g. a circle of copper wire that is electrically charged) ... How is the copper charged initially ? Does the copper wire need to form a closed loop ?

F6FLT

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #117 on: 2026-01-14, 15:52:30 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2435

Quote from: Verpies on 2026-01-14, 01:42:37

The electric and magnetic fields are two sides of the same coin.
It is true that they transform into each other depending on the velocity of the reference frame.

However this does not mean that one is more real than the other ...or more fundamental ...or that one can be derived from the other but not vice versa.
...

I completely disagree on this point, for several reasons:
1) The magnetic field is only the result of relativistic transformations of the electric field, so there is no need to use both.
2) Therefore, there is no “duality”; it is the same thing seen from different points of view.
3) Since only the electric field exists in the charge's own reference frame, it is the electric field that is truly fundamental.

Whenever we use the magnetic field in models, we forget that the only force acting on the charges and doing work is the electric field. The consequence is that the model with the magnetic field misleads us, distracting us from understanding causes and effects.
For example, the idea that a variable flux through a circuit induces a current, which is widely held, is false. Only the electric field of the inducing current, seen locally by the charges of the induced circuit, displaces them by F=q.E. The variation in flux is only a concomitant effect of the current in the inductor, generating a B field that has no causal role in induction.

« Last Edit: 2026-01-14, 16:51:03 by F6FLT »

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

F6FLT

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #118 on: 2026-01-14, 16:10:05 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2435

One equation poses a particular problem: the EMF e=−dΦ/dt, because it is a non-local equation. There may be no magnetic flux at the induced charge, only through the circuit, and yet the charge is set in motion. e=−dΦ/dt is less a physical law than a computational tool for engineers, which does not even apply in all cases, as we shall see.

The second problem is the often absurd interpretation of Maxwell-Faraday's law ∇xE=-∂B/∂t, e.g. that it means “the variation of the magnetic field creates an electric field.” Wrong! The magnetic field is the result of an electric field seen from a particular frame of reference, and when this electric field varies, it directly creates the induction effect in the frame of reference of the induced charge. In this frame of reference, there is no need for the unnecessary intermediary B in the frame of reference of the fixed observer.

However, an essential point to remember about this law is the notion of curl. In French, ‘curl’ is called ‘rotationnel’ (rotational), which is more explicit. Something must indeed “rotate” to drive the charges of an induced circuit, or move if the circuit is linear. However, the formulation by ∂B/∂t has obscured this essential point: what “rotates” in the inductor is the charge density linked to the propagation of the signal in the conductor. This density is not constant along the inductor circuit. When you establish a PD at the input of an inductor, the current is generated instantly at the input, but only appears after a time t=d/v at a distance d from the input of the circuit, with v being the speed of propagation of the signal in the circuit. We therefore have a considerable current gradient along the circuit, and thus a gradient in charge density. This gradient creates a dipolar electric field, with a component parallel to the circuit, which is seen as the electric field of induction in a coupled circuit. What rotates is this variation in charge density linked to the propagation time.

It is clear that if nothing like this rotates, there will be no induction. Such a case is that of a rotating charged ring. We therefore have a circular current. If the rotation alternates in one direction and then the other, then Maxwell-Faraday tells us that the magnetic field created is variable and should therefore induce a current in a coupled loop. The experiment is difficult to carry out in practice, but I maintain that no induction will be possible in this diagram, because nothing is rotating. Admittedly, the charged ring rotates, but since all the charges are at the same speed, the field is invariant under rotation. A snapshot of the charges shows no variation in charge density along the ring, so there is no field that could cause the charges in an induced circuit to rotate.

« Last Edit: 2026-01-14, 16:18:44 by F6FLT »

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

F6FLT

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #119 on: 2026-01-14, 16:10:23 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2435

From this, we can understand another misinterpretation of induction: “the induced electric field cannot derive from a potential.” Wrong! Why do we say this? If you see the electric field around the induced circuit in a snapshot, it is a spatially constant field (we are in the quasistatic approximation), its gradient is zero, so by definition it cannot derive from a potential.
If we accept that the idea of “curl” in Maxwell-Faraday's equation is correct, which I am convinced it is, and that the only thing rotating in a conventional current obtained from a generator is the current density due to the “update” delay of the current variation, then we do indeed have a potential difference at the charge level, otherwise there would be no reason for it to move forward, since the system could no longer minimize the potential (principle of least action).
The big mistake is to say that in the quasi-stationary case, the current is the same everywhere in the circuit. We have ignored the causes of the induced field, the rotation of the charge density in the inductor circuit, but kept a necessary variation that we have modeled by ∂B/∂t. The problem is that we can have ∂B/∂t not equal to zero, but resulting from a current without rotation of charge density (case of the charged ring at variable speed), in which case Maxwell-Faraday no longer applies.

If we take into account the variation in density rotating in the inductor circuit and driving the charges in the induced circuit, then it is clear that the induced field seen at each charge does indeed derive from a potential. This is why the effect of the current in an inductor circuit powered by a generator, on the induced circuit without a generator, is strictly identical to the effect of the current in the induced circuit on the inductor circuit: the effect is completely reciprocal because the mechanism is the same (the one we see, albeit poorly, in Lenz's law).

So, to understand that E dependent on a generator or E derived from VxB both derive from a potential seen by the charge, a mechanical analogy is very useful. It is the one that compares the skier and the windsurfer.
The skier descends a long slope, which is the PD of the generator.
The windsurfer offshore follows the swell (aided here by the wind because the swell is not sufficient, which is the only difference in the analogy). So it seems as if he is constantly descending a slope, but the slope is moving forward. This forward-moving slope is equivalent to the potential difference that rotates in the induced circuit. I have done a lot of windsurfing, and when you are on the slope of the swell, you see a slope exactly as when you are skiing. You really feel like you are descending it indefinitely, and yet you remain at the same potential, the surface of the water.

I made this diagram to understand what is happening. The diagram is approximate (chatGPT), you have to consider the vertical axis as virtual, and see the gutter turning around the axis and driving the charge. The charge always remains at the same potential (same height). But it is indeed a potential difference, the slope, that drives it. That is induction.

Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw

mecanicInduction1.png (301.52 kB, 902x668 - viewed 56 times.)

« Last Edit: 2026-01-14, 16:48:46 by F6FLT »

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Allcanadian

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #120 on: 2026-01-14, 17:22:35 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3064

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026-01-13, 22:20:42

The magnetic field is simply an effect of the relative velocity of charges on their electric fields.
If a charge is moving relative to me, I see a magnetic field.
If the charge is stationary and I am moving relative to it, I see a magnetic field, while another observer attached to the charge does not. The magnetic field has no physical reality, unlike the electric field. It is the worst model of electromagnetism, yet so deeply ingrained in our thinking. So much so that some people see it as a reality.

The only reality for the charge is E, the only field capable of setting it in motion by virtue of F=qE. For the charge, the field B does not exist when it is deflected by the Lorentz force; only a field E, the only reality it sees. B, such that E=V×B, is simply what the stationary observer says exists in space to explain the deflection.

I'm still working on this and have made progress. I've just concluded that a rotating charged ring, which we know creates a magnetic field because it's a rotating current, cannot produce induction in a coupled circuit when its rotation oscillates around the axis, even though there's a variable magnetic field (B) and a change in flux, which contradicts Maxwell-Faraday's law.

I think I've grasped the actual conditions for creating an inductive electric field compatible with Maxwell-Faraday, which must have its scope limited to these conditions alone. This has led me to the idea that it's possible to induce a direct current, and I hope to find a feasible experiment to verify this.

Damn F6FLT, I have never heard anyone explain what you have so well in so few words. Keep doing what your doing.

« Last Edit: 2026-01-14, 17:23:27 by Allcanadian »

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Verpies	Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #121 on: 2026-01-14, 17:47:42 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 4513	@F6 I have asked you a question about an empirical system. I will not engage with you if you refuse to answer my questions.

Allcanadian

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #122 on: 2026-01-14, 19:44:06 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3064

F6FLT

Quote

So, to understand that E dependent on a generator or E derived from VxB both derive from a potential seen by the charge, a mechanical analogy is very useful. It is the one that compares the skier and the windsurfer.
The skier descends a long slope, which is the PD of the generator.
The windsurfer offshore follows the swell (aided here by the wind because the swell is not sufficient, which is the only difference in the analogy). So it seems as if he is constantly descending a slope, but the slope is moving forward. This forward-moving slope is equivalent to the potential difference that rotates in the induced circuit. I have done a lot of windsurfing, and when you are on the slope of the swell, you see a slope exactly as when you are skiing. You really feel like you are descending it indefinitely, and yet you remain at the same potential, the surface of the water.

I used to windsurf as well. The last couple years I got into designing and building my own hydrofoil boards including mono-foils. A good high aspect hydrofoil can surf swells as small as 24" with little problem. It's interesting to consider the length of a sail board in relation to the length and height of the swell. Then consider the chord of my hydrofoil is only 9" and the width 36". The drop in the height of the swell were riding could be less than 2" across the chord of the foil. It's even more cool being 30" above the water and looking down to see an bright aqua marine colored foil slicing through the water only a few inches under the surface.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVyTAqUMd0k&t=160s
Hydrofoil | Wake Foil Slingshot Hover Glide (2020)

If we could apply this principal to electric circuits who knows what would be possible?...

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

F6FLT

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #123 on: 2026-01-14, 20:08:13 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2435

Quote from: Verpies on 2026-01-14, 17:47:42

@F6

I have asked you a question about an empirical system.
I will not engage with you if you refuse to answer my questions.

Extravagant hypothesis, I have never refused to answer questions. There was no indication that this was a personal question and that I had a deadline to respond.

Quote from: Verpies on 2026-01-07, 22:19:05

...
the Lorentz force term (q⋅v × B) looks silly because the (v) refers to the relative velocity between the transverse component of the magnetic field (B) and the charged particle (q).
...

The velocity v is not defined in relation to a field but in relation to an observer.

In F=q.vxB, v is the velocity of the charge relative to the observer who sees the field B.
v has no relation to the source of the field, and even less to a field, which does not allow a reference frame to be defined.

If we fix the observer at one end of the air gap of the magnetic carousel, he sees a static field B directed horizontally. Let us fix this axis as the x-axis. In this field, he sees a charge arriving at velocity v in the horizontal plane as well, but on the y-axis, which will therefore be deflected transversally towards z, either upwards or downwards depending on its sign.

« Last Edit: 2026-01-14, 20:11:14 by F6FLT »

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Verpies

Re: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw « Reply #124 on: 2026-01-14, 23:23:23 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4513

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026-01-14, 20:08:13

I have never refused to answer questions.

Not explicitly but when you make 3 long posts without a direct answer to the question then it is tantamount to ignoring the question.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026-01-14, 20:08:13

There was no indication that this was a personal question

Yes there was because the question was asked in a post that was a reply to your earlier post and I used a question mark.
Questions that are not asked in a reply to you are not personally addressed to you ...as well as any questions explicitly addressed to "@All" or "@OtherMember"

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026-01-14, 20:08:13

...and that I had a deadline to respond.

There is no temporal deadline, but you should not post anything on another subject in the same thread without answering a pending question first.
When a question is pending, consider the thread locked to your posts that do not contain a direct answer or clarifying questions. If multiple members ask you questions then they should be answered on first-come first-serve basis.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026-01-14, 20:08:13

The velocity v is not defined in relation to a field but in relation to an observer.

Obviously when I post an animation and refer to a velocity in it, it is the camera's frame of reference, unless otherwise specified.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026-01-14, 20:08:13

In F=q.vxB, v is the velocity of the charge relative to the observer who sees the field B.

...and in this animation, the initial velocity of the charges is zero wrt to the camera.
The question was about the effect on the charges when the experiment is concluded ...also wrt the camera.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026-01-14, 20:08:13

v has no relation to the source of the field, and even less to a field, which does not allow a reference frame to be defined.

What ? The animation clearly shows two C-shaped magnets moving and two charged particles and that was all that was given. I deliberately did not ask about any "fields" in this animation. I just asked about the effect that this magnet carousel will have on the charged particles.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026-01-14, 20:08:13

If we fix the observer at one end of the air gap of the magnetic carousel, he sees a static field B directed horizontally.
Let us fix this axis as the x-axis.

That is the way you think about it, but the animation's frame of reference was its camera - not an observer sitting on the magnet.
You changed the frame of reference to aid your thinking - this is fine and you do not even have to share it. You method of analysis does not constitute a direct answer.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026-01-14, 20:08:13

In this field, he sees a charge arriving at velocity v in the horizontal plane as well, but on the y-axis, which will therefore be deflected transversally towards z, either upwards or downwards depending on its sign.

This gives me an answer wrt to a hypothetical abserver sitting on the magnet. This is not what I asked for.
The proper answer would describe the force or acceleration or motion of the charged particles at the end of the experiment in the camera's frame of reference.