Is the Fleming's left hand rule valid?

[Mitko Gorgiev]

Let us consider some experiments. We place a stiff copper wire on a table. Parts of its length don’t touch the table. Above a wire section that does not touch the table we hold a strong cylindrical magnet with its plus-pole down (N-pole), so that the wire lies exactly under the middle of the magnet. Then we connect a new battery to the ends of the wire so that the plus-pole is closer to us and the minus-pole further away from us. At the moment of connection we will notice that the wire makes a strong deflection to the left and up. As soon as we turn the magnet over and repeat the same, the wire will make a strong deflection to the right and up. If we hold the magnet again with the positive pole down, now not directly over the wire, but left over it, however still close to it, we will notice that the wire after connecting to the battery makes a jerky movement to the right and down. How is this explained? In the first variant, the permanent magnet “blows” down; the magnetic wind in and around the wire blows clockwise spirally from the plus to the minus-pole of the battery; it blows down on the right of the wire, up on the left of it; on the right of the wire both magnetic winds coincide (the effect intensifies), and on the left of the wire they collide (the effect weakens); the wire moves to where the effect only intensifies, namely to the maximum, and that is to the left and up. In the third variant, in which both winds only collide, the wire deflects to where the adverse effect is maximally attenuated or quite ceased, namely to the right and down.

What will happen if we place a second identical magnet below the first? The upper magnet will pull the conductor to the left and up, while the lower magnet to the left and down. The resultant force will be to the left, perpendicular to the magnetic lines of force (figure below).

But this applies only if the conductor is placed exactly in the middle between the magnets and if the magnetic field is homogeneous. What is a homogeneous magnetic field? Please look at the drawing below (figure a):

The magnetic field of the magnet is weaker at a greater distance from the magnet’s pole. At a greater distance than 'd', we could say that the strength of the magnetic field is practically zero. The weakening of the strength is symbolically represented by the different shades of gray.

The weakening is also symbolically represented by the red and the blue triangle in the figure b. If the two identical magnets are brought at the distance ‘d’ (or lesser than ‘d’) without allowing them to come together, then in the interspace between them there is a homogeneous magnetic field because the two fields complement each other. This means that the strength of the magnetic field is the same in every point of the interspace (figure c).

The magnetic field is homogeneous in terms of strength, but it is not homogeneous in terms of polarity. The Plus and the Minus retain their character just as before the bringing of the magnets close to each other.

So, the Fleming’s left hand rule is valid only in one particular case, that is, when the conductor is placed exactly in the middle between the magnets. When a rule is valid only in one particular case, then it can be no rule at all. Therefore the Fleming’s left hand rule should go to the trash heap of the history.

Consider also whether this formula about the so-called Lorentz force is true:

F = qE + qv x B

See also: A new explanation of the electric current

 

[swansont]

On 1/2/2021 at 3:51 PM, Mitko Gorgiev said:

See also: A new explanation of the electric current

!

Moderator Note

Don’t advertise your pet theories in other threads.

You can’t build one speculation on top of another.

 

 

[Ghideon]

29 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

What will happen if we place a second identical magnet below the first? The upper magnet will pull the conductor to the left and up, while the lower magnet to the left and down. 

Why? I don't see how there is a force component towards the magnet in both cases. 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Ghideon

[Mitko Gorgiev]

Quote

Why? I don't see how there is a force component towards the magnet in both cases. 

Then read the thread once again. I have explained it.

Quote

Don’t advertise your pet theories in other threads.

You can’t build on speculation on top of another.x

Why? Is there a rule that I cannot post a link to my thread? I think you give yourself too much power.

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Then read the thread once again. I have explained it.

I read your opening post and I did not understand all parts of it. But I was curious and hence asked a question. I was under the impression that posting an idea on a discussion forum meant that you had an interest in a discussion. Seems I was mistaken, sorry. My comment will therefore be short:

3 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

In the first variant, the permanent magnet “blows” down; the magnetic wind in and around the wire blows clockwise spirally from the plus to the minus-pole of the battery;

Your explanations are incorrect. Permanent magnets do not blow. Magnetic fields are not winds. Your force vectors seems to have incorrect angles. Your idea does not match observations.

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by Ghideon
grammar

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Why? Is there a rule that I cannot post a link to my thread? I think you give yourself too much power.

 

!

Moderator Note

Yes. Rule 2.5 

Stay on topic. Posts should be relevant to the discussion at hand. This means that you shouldn't use scientific threads to advertise your own personal theory, or post only to incite a hostile argument.

Also, speculations rule #1

Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof.

One speculation can’t be used to backstop another, since a speculation doesn’t qualify as evidence or proof

 

You can, and should, review these rules.

 

[Mitko Gorgiev]

On 1/2/2021 at 10:20 PM, Ghideon said:

Why? I don't see how there is a force component towards the magnet in both cases. 

Look at the figure below:

This is an extract from the figure (a) of the first diagram of my original post. The direction of the forces on the right side agree/coincide, whereas on the left side they collide. The current carrying wire is moving toward a place where the collision will be minimized, whereas the agreement will be maximized.
What is here not clear?

[Ghideon]

45 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

What is here not clear?

Because the blue arrow is in the wrong direction for the analysis of the force on the current carrying wire. 

Are you implying that the force on the current carrying wire depend on the magnetic field generated by the current carrying wire itself?

[Mitko Gorgiev]

On 1/5/2021 at 8:51 PM, Ghideon said:

Because the blue arrow is in the wrong direction for the analysis of the force on the current carrying wire. 

So, would you tell us where should be the right direction of the blue arrow and how would you do the right analysis of the force on the current carrying wire?

On 1/5/2021 at 8:51 PM, Ghideon said:

Are you implying that the force on the current carrying wire depend on the magnetic field generated by the current carrying wire itself?

I don't believe that I am writing the following question: 
What other thing would the force on the current carrying wire depend on than its magnetic field?

[John Cuthber]

4 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

I don't believe that I am writing the following question: 

I can believe it.

4 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

What other thing would the force on the current carrying wire depend on than its magnetic field?

Well, the rest of us would recognise that it depends on the external magnetic field too.

 

But you don't seem to understand science so, as I said, I'm not surprised that you had to ask.

Why do you keep posting this stuff, even though it's clear that you are wrong?

[Ghideon]

18 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

So, would you tell us where should be the right direction of the blue arrow and how would you do the right analysis of the force on the current carrying wire?

Here is a picture. Force on the current carrying wire due to magnetic field does not include the magnetic field generated by the wire itself.

18 hours ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

What other thing would the force on the current carrying wire depend on than its magnetic field?

Since force on the current carrying wire do not depend on the wire's own magnetic field the answer is the external magnetic field, in this case the magnetic field generated bý the magnets. 

 

[Mitko Gorgiev]

On 1/7/2021 at 5:08 PM, Ghideon said:

Here is a picture. Force on the current carrying wire due to magnetic field does not include the magnetic field generated by the wire itself.

Since force on the current carrying wire do not depend on the wire's own magnetic field the answer is the external magnetic field, in this case the magnetic field generated bý the magnets. 

 

"Since force on the current carrying wire do not depend on the wire's own magnetic field ..."

I can't believe that I am reading what I am reading. 
Let me teach you something.
The force on the current-carrying wire is a result of INTERACTION OF TWO FIELDS:
1) the field of the magnet or the magnets (if there are two of them);
2) the field of the current-carrying wire.

I haven't replied long time because I have a deep inner resistance to answer to a nonsense.

[Ghideon]

 

34 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

The force on the current-carrying wire is a result of INTERACTION OF TWO FIELDS:
1) the field of the magnet or the magnets (if there are two of them);
2) the field of the current-carrying wire.

Can you provide a reference?

 

[Mitko Gorgiev]

35 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 

Can you provide a reference?

 

I don't have to provide some lousy references which say that the force is always perpendicular(?!!) to the magnetic lines of force. That is simply not true.
Think of this:
When the current in the conductor flows away from us, the wire deflects to one side.
When the current in the conductor flows towards us, the wire deflects to the opposite side.
How is that possible if the force does not depend on the magnetic field of the wire?!!!

51 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 

You can downvote my texts (whoever it is) as much as you want, but you will not stop the TRUTH to spread among the people. It is stronger than billions of downvotes.
Instead of downvoting, START TO THINK WITH YOUR HEAD.

[beecee]

25 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

I don't have to provide some lousy references

Of course you do when asked. Or possibly there is none that supports your cause [whatever that maybe] 

25 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

You can downvote my texts (whoever it is) as much as you want, but you will not stop the TRUTH to spread among the people. It is stronger than billions of downvotes.
Instead of downvoting, START TO THINK WITH YOUR HEAD.

Down votes are applied generally when someone is wrong or contankerous. With this "truth" you speak of, and spreading it amongst the people, you do understand that this is just a remote science forum that reaches a very small scant number of people don't you? I mean if you have faith in what you are claiming, and it differs from maainstream convention, then you need to get your brainwave published to reach any semblance of a wider audience to explain your so called brain wave. Or alternatively be told to go back to the drawing boards.

Edited March 20, 2021 by beecee

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

"Since force on the current carrying wire do not depend on the wire's own magnetic field ..."

I can't believe that I am reading what I am reading. 
Let me teach you something.
The force on the current-carrying wire is a result of INTERACTION OF TWO FIELDS:
1) the field of the magnet or the magnets (if there are two of them);
2) the field of the current-carrying wire.

I haven't replied long time because I have a deep inner resistance to answer to a nonsense.

And yet, in applying the equation, we see that the force on the current-carrying wire does not depend on the field generated by the wire.

The current gives all the information we need. IOW you’re confusing the equation with some description of the details of the interaction 

27 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

When the current in the conductor flows away from us, the wire deflects to one side.
When the current in the conductor flows towards us, the wire deflects to the opposite side.
How is that possible if the force does not depend on the magnetic field of the wire?!!!

That’s exactly what you expect if the force depends on the current.

[studiot]

 

58 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

How is that possible if the force does not depend on the magnetic field of the wire?!!!

I am not sure, reading through this, whether Mitko means that there is a separate magnetic field due to the wire whether there is a current or not
OR that he means that the when there is a current in the wire the this generates amagentic field which is one of the two fields he says interacts

 

It seems to me there are two obvious questions that the OP needs to answer to clarify this

What force is there  if there is a wire but no current  + the external field ?

What force is there is there is a current but no wire  + an external field ?

[Ghideon]

 

On 3/20/2021 at 9:31 PM, Mitko Gorgiev said:

I don't have to provide some lousy references which say that the force is always perpendicular(?!!) to the magnetic lines of force.

Your claims and explanations seems to be in disagreement with current mainstream physics, so a supporting reference would have been helpful.

On 1/2/2021 at 9:51 PM, Mitko Gorgiev said:

Therefore the Fleming’s left hand rule should go to the trash heap of the history.

That would require (a lot) more evidence than presented so far. 

[Mitko Gorgiev]

50 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Your claims and explanations seems to be in disagreement with current mainstream physics, so a supporting reference would have been helpful. 

Yes, my claims and explanations are in disagreement with current mainstream physics. You have asked for a reference that the force which a direct current-carrying wire experience in a magnetic field is a result of the interaction of two fields. I have already told you: I don't have to give a reference that 2+2=4.

58 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

That would require (a lot) more evidence than presented so far. 

Look at the diagram below:

In the figure (a) the wire is exactly in the middle between two magnets which create a magnetic field of uniform strength. In the moment when the wire is connected to a DC source, it makes a jerky movement downwards perpendicularly to the magnetic lines of force.

In the figure (b) the wire is shifted somewhat to the left. In the moment when it is connected to a DC source, the wire makes a jerky movement to the left and down, that is, not perpendicularly to the magnetic lines of force. 

That is my claim and it is very easily verifiable.

So, let us bet.
If I am wrong, then I will go to live on a desert island for the rest of my life and will not say a word of physics anymore.
If I am right, then you will have to go to the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences and tell the highest authorities there that there is a man in North Macedonia who deserves a Nobel Prize (you are from Sweden, aren't you?).

Do we have a deal?

[studiot]

Are you planning to answer my question please ?

[Mitko Gorgiev]

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Are you planning to answer my question please ?

I don't answer to questions which don't make any sense. Read your questions again and think a little.

[beecee]

33 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

So, let us bet.
If I am wrong, then I will go to live on a desert island for the rest of my life and will not say a word of physics anymore.
If I am right, then you will have to go to the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences and tell the highest authorities there that there is a man in North Macedonia who deserves a Nobel Prize (you are from Sweden, aren't you?).

Do we have a deal?

Your rather canatkerous attiude and refusal to answer questions, casts much doubt on your honesty to adhere to the above rather silly childish bet.

[Mitko Gorgiev]

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

Your rather canatkerous attiude and refusal to answer questions, casts much doubt on your honesty to adhere to the above rather silly childish bet.

I have experienced only hostility in this forum, nothing, but nothing else. And you tell me about my cantankerous attitude?!!
Would YOU bet?
You propose a grown-up bet. 

By the way, what should I answer to this question?
"What force is there is there is a current but no wire  + an external field ?"   
???!!!!

[beecee]

11 minutes ago, Mitko Gorgiev said:

I have experienced only hostility in this forum, nothing, but nothing else. And you tell me about my cantankerous attitude?!!
Would YOU bet?
You propose a grown-up bet. 

By the way, what should I answer to this question?
"What force is there is there is a current but no wire  + an external field ?"   
???!!!!

This is a science forum. Any hostility you have imagined, is simply others applying the proper scientific methodology and asking you for references and/or links to support your claims. And of course if you were really serious and fair dinkum, you wouldn't be trying to enlighten the world and scientific community on a remote science forum, that only members and observers that happen to tune in, can learn from.

In essensce, it appears to me anyway [although I'm a nobody in the greater scheme of things] that you have an ego problem.

If you were correct in any of your hypothetical claims, it would in time, [after running the gauntlet]  be accepted. That's how science works. That's what any scientific theory needs to do.

[Mitko Gorgiev]

5 minutes ago, beecee said:

This is a science forum. Any hostility you have imagined, is simply others applying the proper scientific methodology and asking you for references and/or links to support your claims. And of course if you were really serious and fair dinkum, you wouldn't be trying to enlighten the world and scientific community on a remote science forum, that only members and observers that happen to tune in, can learn from.

In essensce, it appears to me anyway [although I'm a nobody in the greater scheme of things] that you have an ego problem.

If you were correct in any of your hypothetical claims, it would in time, [after running the gauntlet]  be accepted. That's how science works. That's what any scientific theory needs to do.

Why don't you answer my question instead of analyzing my psychology?
Would YOU bet?
If you all are so sure in your "proper scientific methodology", then what is the problem?