Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 485136
  • *Total Topics: 14262
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 169
  • *Total: 173

Facebook

Author Topic: We have NO CONSENSUS on the electromagnetic field energy/momentum distributions!  (Read 3120 times)

Offline kmarinas86

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
    • YouTube - kmarinas86's Channel
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1617.pdf

Quote from: Electromagnetic Potentials Basis for Energy Density and Power Flux
Electromagnetic Potentials Basis for Energy Density and Power Flux
Harold E. Puthoff
Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, 11855 Research Blvd., Austin, Texas 78759

E-mail: puthoff@earthtech.org
Tel: 512-346-9947
Fax: 512-346-3017

Abstract

It is well understood that various alternatives are available within EM theory for the definitions of energy density, momentum transfer, EM stress-energy tensor, and so forth. Although the various options are all compatible with the basic equations of electrodynamics (e.g., Maxwell's equations, Lorentz force law, gauge invariance), nonetheless certain alternative formulations lend themselves to being seen as preferable to others with regard to the transparency of their application to physical problems of interest. Here we argue for the transparency of an energy density/power flux optionbased on the EM potentials alone.

[....]

Though little discussed, there exists a rich literature on alternative definitions of EM energy density and power flux, the general purpose of which has been to attempt to bring clarity to some of the ambiguities associated with the standard definitions. In an early paper by Slepian, for example, no less than eight alternatives to the standard definitions are considered, all congruent with Maxwell's equations[2]. That is, once integrated over a volume of interest the net energy and power flow resulting from use of the various alternative expressions are all in agreement; only the density distributions and their associated interpretations differ.

[....]

5. Discussion
In the application of electromagnetic principles there has been a continuing development of various alternatives with regard to definitions involving the distributions of energy density and momentum transfer by EM fields defined in terms of the variables (E,B,A,φ). This is a consequence of the fact that the distributions are not uniquely determined by Maxwell's equations. Since in EM calculations all of the various (viable) options lead to identical predictions and outcomes with regard to net integrated energy density and power flux, from a mathematical viewpoint they are found to be equivalent as to net results. Therefore, strictly speaking, it is generally considered to be a matter of aesthetic choice as to which of the various approaches are used. Nonetheless, given the vagaries of misinterpretation that can occur in application, it appears that the potentials-based approach considered herein, being one that follows from a well-defined mathematical structure implicit in the theory of partial differential equations, has much to offer and therefore comes well-recommended as a canonical procedure.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline kmarinas86

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 156
    • YouTube - kmarinas86's Channel
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0501/0501148.pdf
Quote from: On momentum and energy of a non-radiating electromagnetic field
Alexander L. Kholmetskii
Belarusian State University
4, F. Skorina Avenue, Minsk 220080, Belarus
kholm@bsu.by


Abstract
This paper inspects more closely the problem of the momentum and energy of a bound (non-radiating) electromagnetic (EM) field. It has been shown that for an isolated system of non-relativistic mechanically free charged particles a transformation of mechanical to EM momentum and vice versa occurs in accordance with the requirement PG=const, where PG is the canonical momentum. If such a system contains bound charges, fixed on insulators then, according to the assumption of a number of authors, a so-called "hidden" momentum can contribute into the total momentum of the system. The problem of "hidden momentum" (pro and contra) is also examined in the paper, as well as the law of conservation of total energy for different static configurations of the system "magnetic dipole plus charged particle". Analyzing two expressions for electromagnetic momentum of a bound EM field, qA and the Poynting expression, we emphasize that they coincide with each other for quasi-static configurations, but give a discrepancy for rapid dynamical processes. We conclude that neither the first, nor the second expressions provide a continuous implementation of the momentum conservation law. Finally, we consider the energy flux in a bound EM field, using the Umov vector. It has been shown that Umov vector can be directly derived from Maxwell equations. A new form of the momentum-energy tensor, which explicitly unites the mechanical and EM masses, has been proposed.

[....]

These results indicate that free and bound EM fields represent different physical entities. Indeed, the non-radiating EM fields obey non-homogeneous Maxwell’s equation, while EM radiation obeys homogeneous Maxwell equations. It simultaneously means that there should be a physical mechanism, allowing distinguishing the bound and free EM fields in their mixture. In the author’s opinion, such a physical mechanism is based on the fact that EM radiation is absorbed, at least in principle, by a charged particle, while a non-radiating field is not (the change of kinetic energy of particle is equal to change of its electric potential energy with the reverse sign).

[....]

One sees that Eq. (68) provides the equality

U_EM = M_EM * c^2      (69)

for the energy and mass densities in accordance with the Einstein's expression. Integrating Eq. (69) over the whole space, we get (U_EM is the total EM energy, M_EM is the total EM mass). Thus, the expression of energy flux density through the vector of Umov eliminates the familiar problem "4/3" [20] for a moving electron, and realizes the relativistic expression (69) for the mass and energy densities.


Offline ATOM1

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 151
interesting state of confusion ! The point here is a simple one there is no international code or agreement for such values we tend to work with the standard points in a electronics dictionary and some what stuck to them ! The fact that ohms law works well for a non reactive circuit means that as we encounter reactive equations formulas and experimentations we witness many contradictions and find no ground to stand a finite set of mathematical equations to fit a universal structured set of new laws and confirmed equations.

This opens up the world of the maverick explorer who seeks out new events not available for mathematical conformation ! We are there for lost as to the reality of the new laws for dielectric formation of such interactions and have no model for them. The starting point for debate is often just words in a chaos of possibilities argued by the ones that seek acclaim of there theories.

I for one am not lost by such confusion and have created my own standard foundations for the measuring of phenomena that is all EMF MF by a simple guide in natural harmonics. All mass has a starting point and shares this position as a starting position formed by the big bang to me its the primary and the secondary position is complex atomic structures from super nova.

At each position the harmonic EMF boundaries are formed and can never be re arranged or argued over , this is where the foundation of a complete understanding of all values can be confidently confirmed.

The mistake we have all made is that we have only considered the performance of technology by means of chosen components that perform functions to produce products ! phenomena beyond our normal delivery of technology is apparent and seen by observations
of new and up and coming technology. The error here is not having the full spectrum of harmonic interactions that can and will Accor across this new delivery of technologies.

Natural harmonic resonance of all mass has yet to be fully intergraded into formula for this delivery of new technology ! All forms of free energy are confronted by this dilemma and ignored by the inventors who all tend to have there own un confirmed theories as to how there technology works. In truth most of all these events happen by experimentations that are hit and miss or lets see what happens and some are just plain lucky.

The important thing about the dielectric constant that exists in all mass and space right down to the plank level including all known and un known particles is harmonic resonance. Vectors and quantities alone never fully identifies the natural harmonic state that sets the level's for resistance in reactive equations and leave the experimenter a drift as to why there technology does what it does.

From radiant energy the zero point field, negative energy, electro gravity, particle entanglement, vacuum theory, relativity, ect ect all have no confirmed dielectric harmonic positioning! The reality is we do have all the answers but we have no international body to feed them to that will set the global standards so as to facilitate there interactions along the academic path.

I personally have 9 of my own free energy systems that do not fit with any academic standard for energy and is quite impossible to present them to say the UK for a British health and standards certificate that quantifies them as a safe useable technology. Normally a electrical technology will have a QC pass on them carried out by a qualified engineer, BUT THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH SUCH TECHNOLOGY AS THERE ARE NO QULIFIDE ZERO POINT ENGINEERS. 


Is very funny hahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhah

lol from ATOM1


     





 




   




 



 

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: