I was responding to the MHD case.
Indeed the Lorentz force has two components: the electric and the magnetic ...but only the magnetic one depends on the relative velocity.
In that case an electric field is the major cause of acceleration. The electric component of the Lorentz force does not depend on V. In your scenario, the acceleration is not due to the relative motion between charges and magnetic field (the magnetic component of the Lorentz force), so indeed F is the same.
You're not talking about the principle of the setup that I'm proposing to test experimentally. Unlike the MHD, it is electrically and not mechanically that I want to highlight the movement of charges under Lorentz force.
Look here at the underlying idea:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3690.msg71088#msg71088
See the diagram. If it is not clear, I will clarify upon request.
The tests, which have been negative so far, lead now to this simple and direct question:
why can't an electrical effect be detected between the plates of capacitor 2? You might as well apply the same kind of thinking to a spinning bicycle wheel and claim that its rim is not spinning but moving vertically and horizontally
...P.S.
Please realize that every time you write "field" you are referring to a geometric field of forces (iow: a vector field of forces). Forces must act on something and that interaction with that something defines the force. In electrodynamics a "field" is just a linguistic shorthand for a "field of forces".
I agree only with your P.S. and consider your comparison to be irrelevant ("comparison is not reason"), and here is why.
A bicycle is a physical reality that constitutes an undeformable whole, located in a well-defined volume of space, without any relationship to anything at a distance.
A field is a set of scalars that specify locally for each position in space the effect that a remote system will have on a charge. A field is defined only at a particular point position. A field E=F/q means a local condition that will produce a force F on a charge q at this unique position. But field E has a source that is not local.
If the source changes its field, it will take a time t=d/c for the field to be changed at a distance d. Since this distance d is obviously not the same for all the positions of space where the field is defined, it follows that the topology of the field will be modified during its "update" from the source, it will not be changed as a block, which is indeed proof that the field in a volume of space cannot be considered as a whole that could rotate or move, it is not an independent physical reality.
When a light spot is projected on a wall by a mobile projector that moves it along the wall, no one believes that the photons move along the wall. The photons always come from the projector and only from the projector, and hit the wall. I don't see any point in imagining that differently when it comes to a magnetic or electric field. On the contrary, it is extremely misleading.
Moreover, the approach by the potentials allows the same results to be achieved in terms of describing local effects, demonstrating that it is not even known whether the fields are closer than the potentials to the underlying physical reality they describe. A field, or a potential, is only a mathematical facility to describe local effects without having to take into account the remote source. It's not an object.
While everyone can imagine things as they wish to clarify their ideas, more rigor is needed to share ideas in a scientific context. Explanations by a field that would be an independent blob, animated, in motion or rotation, are childish and misleading, imho they must be avoided except in trivial cases, I was not saying anything more.
feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
Poll
4 (80%)
Author
Topic: Electromagnetic Archimedes' screw (Read 19459 times)
