Motional EMF

[icester]

I have updated my paper:

 

OrmanForce.pdf

[Strange]

3 hours ago, icester said:

I have updated my paper:

 

OrmanForce.pdf

Unless you have deleted it, I doubt it is any more accurate.

And perhaps you should say what you have changed rather than expecting people to remember what it said before.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, icester said:

No, static magnetic field does not induce EMF:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_equation

Are you being deliberately obtuse here?  You are the one suggesting that such a field should induce an EMF.  Are you ready to retract the claims you have made for the last several pages of this thread?

Static field means no relative motion which changes the flux. If you have such motion, it's induction. 

 

 

[icester]

Just now, swansont said:

Are you being deliberately obtuse here?  You are the one suggesting that such a field should induce an EMF. 

Static field means no relative motion which changes the flux. If you have it, it's induction.

 

 

Read the post history carefully or try  to remember because I stated at least twice that is Lorentz  who claims without experimental confirmation that there is EMF on wire moving with constant linear velocity  in uniform and constant magnetic field... Static has many meanings but exact conditions are specified clearly... See the MIT's reference in my updated paper...

[swansont]

8 hours ago, icester said:

Read the post history carefully or try  to remember because I stated at least twice that is Lorentz  who claims without experimental confirmation that there is EMF on wire moving with constant linear velocity  in uniform and constant magnetic field... Static has many meanings but exact conditions are specified clearly... See the MIT's reference in my updated paper...

There’s plenty of evidence that Lorentz is correct.

I have no plans to waste time by reading your paper. You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Insisting you're right when it's trivially easy to show otherwise is soapboxing, and against the rules. You need to explain and support your ideas rigorously when they conflict with mainstream understanding (it is, after all, a collection of our best current explanations for various phenomena). You've had five pages to do that, and still cling to misunderstandings. Thread closed. Don't bring it up again.