"Harry" wrote in message ...
Dear Sergey,

After this I give up!
I showed you that your interpretation of the magnetic equations must be
wrong, and I claimed that your experiments in your paper are, as far as I
can see but after very careful examination, in agreement with standard
theory. You did not reply to that, but you proposed a new, simpler
experiment that would indeed distinguish between your theory and standard
theory.
I encouraged you to that experiment, and even how you can simplify it even
more, so you can do it completely in less than one day.
But I also pointed out why it is certain that you are wrong, because your
theory has the wrong scaling factor, it yields wrong dimensions! Again, you
did not answer on that.

But now you claim that one of your other experiments is the same:
"Everything what you saw in that new experiment has been fully presented in
those which we stated in the paper. "
You know that I disagree, and obviously you did not believe that I had
carefully studied your experiments.
However, I did not discuss it in detail.. I do not think that your last
fig.2 changes anything.
For locating B, we must look at the magnetic flux. Almost all magnetic flux
goes through the metal. You have two magnetic circuits next to each other
with the flux going round in the same sense. As a result, the flux of the
left windings goes opposite through the central part as the flux in the
right windings:

^ v ^ v
^ v ^ v
^ v ^ v

Your double probe-loop makes things complex. You measure in that central
part, the rest remaining equal, likely. In the central position you should
measure nothing, as everything is compensated, in each half loop the total
up flux is the same as the total down flux. It looks to me that you pick up
the potential from the currents due to the average vertical total fluxes,
which change when you move out of the central position.
For example, going with your frame to the left in my sketch, you will get a
net "up" flux in your left half loop and net "down" flux in the other part,
so that they add up to give a voltage between the pick-up points.

Have a nice end of 2003!

Harald

Dear Harald,

Mysterious human soul! It happens, you can buy a lamb but don't want;
it happens, you want to buy a lamb, but cannot. When I answer your
questions, you delete my explanations and say, I don't answer. When I
persuaded you, and you have admitted - yes, persuaded! - what makes
you saying again, this all is none the less wrong, you are giving up
to persuade me obstinate, and even that it were you who

[Harald, 2003-12-22]
I encouraged you to that experiment, and even how you can simplify it
even
more, so you can do it completely in less than one day.

[Sergey]
Of course, I understand, how unexpected is this what you saw in our
experiments. And such steep turn from

[Harald, 2003-12-02]
In my opinion it's all wrong, horribly wrong. I urge you to withdraw
your paper from Internet.

[Sergey]
to

[Harald, 2003-12-10]
However, in your newly proposed experiment, clearly you predict
something else than the books: You claim that the induced voltage is
not determined by the amount of enclosed flux, but by the amount of
magnetic field on the wire, and you propose the new experiment to
decide. Am I right?

[Sergey]
Undoubtedly, such transformation was not so easy for you. The more
that your understanding yet doesn't reflect exactly the process I
describe. Maybe, this is why you are so enigmatic and still are
insistently trying to reduce our experiments to your averaged
loops...! ;-)

Only I cannot catch, to which experiments have you encouraged me if we
have conducted them seven years ago in much more volume than we
presented in the paper. On the contrary, because the educational level
of West colleagues, regrettably, does not offer them to analyse the
phenomena enough deeply, and deep explanation is immediately reduced
to language difficulties or errors, we made one survey paper from
three large. And only you, Bob and Anderson responded (if his reaction
can be attributed as a respond). And Bill on
alt.engineering.electrical also discussed ... my language. All my
attempts to clear, what namely cannot he understand, remained without
reply. ;-) And what strikes - when someone accuses me that I didn't
answer, hiding under it the admission that I have proven. What's the
cause of such behaviour?! Today it's me who's right, tomorrow it will
be you, a day after someone else. This is just the development!

Please re-read your phrase whole:

[Harald, 2003-12-22]
You did not reply to that, but you proposed a new, simpler
experiment that would indeed distinguish between your theory and
standard
theory.

[Sergey]
and tell me, with your above abrupt transition from denial to
admittance, to which part of this phrase have I to react? If I did not
reply, how have you changed your opinion? If I did, why this first
part of your phrase is here? Before representing you the experiment
with two cores, I wrote you so:

(Citation from my post to you of 2003-12-14)
[Sergey]
You have snipped all my explanations and make appearance as if there
was nothing in my post except you retained. Well, I will not comment
it, but in order to lift finally the question of flux of vector that
you are imposing and to show you your statement erroneous and related
to the conventional electromagnetic theory only in your mind:
[Harald]
in conventional electromagnetic theory, the local magnetic field
vector change is irrelevant for the induced current. What counts is
the average magnetic field inside the loop, and not the magnetic field
at the wire"
[Sergey]
I suggest to carry out a very simple experiment shown in Fig. 1.
(Uncitation)

[Sergey]
Doesn't it show you, I simply had no wish to dig into long fruitless
discussion and lifted your question basically, having suggested the
check experiment. Well, to what I didn't answer? ;-)

Again, you are saying,

[Harald, 2003-12-22]
I encouraged you to that experiment, and even how you can simplify it
even
more, so you can do it completely in less than one day.
But I also pointed out why it is certain that you are wrong, because
your
theory has the wrong scaling factor, it yields wrong dimensions!
Again, you
did not answer on that.

[Sergey]
I have re-read all your posts in this thread and couldn't find even a
hint of this. Maybe, you were about and forgot? ;-)

And my simplifications, as you called them, factually were not
simplifications. However, doing not answering to my variant of
extending a loop from gap, you are going on insisting on averaged
fluxes. Or rather, now not averaged, but none the less determining the
inversion of emf in the centre of gap:

[Harald, 2003-12-22]
I do not think that your last fig.2 changes anything.
For locating B, we must look at the magnetic flux. Almost all magnetic
flux
goes through the metal. You have two magnetic circuits next to each
other
with the flux going round in the same sense. As a result, the flux of
the
left windings goes opposite through the central part as the flux in
the
right windings

[Sergey]
But I twice have drawn you the figure showing flux directions in the
experiment. In the side rods of core the fluxes are one-side directed
(in the figure - upwards). These fluxes are one-directed in the
central rod! What have you to the right? And to the left? Believe me,
I can understand noting from you post. What about I told you so long
time? What explained? What drew? Where from your picture

^ v ^ v
^ v ^ v
^ v ^ v

could appear? While I have shown you, inversion in the centre of gap
does not depend on, is the loop single either compensative. If you are
trying to explain our result in this way, please explain it on a
single frame when it is extended from the gap - just what I asked you
to explain in your previous post. ;-)

Finally, I didn't understand, have you lifted the objections of your
first post? ;-)

Happy New Year to you! I wish you great happiness and success in your
research and full agreement and understanding both in your family and
with colleagues.

Sergey

Dear Sergey,

I got tired from our discussion, but I did not lift my main objections
from my first post.

I like to elaborate on one point that I only hinted at at first and
then I only roughly sketched it. I had the impression, and you did
not comment on it, that you treat a surface integral as if it is a
line integral, with very bad consequences, and I mentioned dimensional
analysis.

According to you, for an experiment in which you have a wire just
inside a rectangular gap, either along the long or the short side: "my
emf has to depend on ratio between the long and short sides of gap. "
I concluded from that - in agreement from what I concluded from your
paper - that then the emf should be proportional to the length of the
wire inside the gap, as the forces of moving charges simply add up.

Then EMF = length * speed of change of flux or:
Volt = m * Wb/m^2 /s = Wb/s /m = V*s/s /m = V/m.
That can't be right, and would be detected when for example changing
the scale of designed electromotors.

As I wrote, according to standard theory, Volt = surface * speed of
change of flux.
Thus Volt = m^2 * Wb/m^2 /s = Wb/s = V*s/s = V

Best wishes for 2004!

Harald