# Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

## Solid States Devices => solid state devices => Topic started by: hanon on June 11, 2014, 09:47:21 PM

Title: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on June 11, 2014, 09:47:21 PM
I want to open a dicussion about the universal validity of the Faraday Law of Induction. It seems that there are two kind of induction and we should clarify if both are identical or both are different phenomena.

A) Induction by flux cutting the induced wire: this induction is done in current generators and the flux lines must cut the wire. It requires relative movement (at speed v) between the field and the wire

E = B · v · Length

B)Induction by flux linking two coils:
this induction is done in transformers. The flux lines do not need to cut the wire. It is just need a variable magnetic field

E = -N · S · dB/dt

Richard Feynman (Nobel prize winner) about the electromagnetic induction:

"So the "flux rule" that the emf in a circuit is equal to the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit applies whether the flux changes because the field changes or because the circuit moves (or both) ...

Yet in our explanation of the rule we have used two completely distinct laws for the two cases  E = v x B  for "circuit moves" and  E = -S· dB/dt  for "field changes".

We know of no other place in physics where such a simple and accurate general principle requires for its real understanding an analysis in terms of two different phenomena.

...

The "flux rule" does not work in this case [note: for an example explained in the original text]. It must be applied to circuits in which the material of the circuit remains the same. When the material of the circuit is changing, we must return to the basic laws. The correct physics is always given by the two basic laws

F = q · ( E + v · B )
rot E = - dB/dt                              "

— Richard P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics  .

--------------------------------------------

For those interested in an interesting fact about the Induction Law here I link a file which explains that two different formulations seem to exist for the same phenomenon : one, the Faraday Unipolar generator: E = (v · B) , other the Maxwell 2nd Law : rot E = -dB/dt, which are two different formulations for the same law !!! "Faraday or Maxwell" by Meyl (read page 5 and next) http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/Faraday-or-Maxwell.pdf (http://www.k-meyl.de/go/Primaerliteratur/Faraday-or-Maxwell.pdf)

"THE FLUX LINKING LAW, E = -dB/dt, AND THE FLUX CUTTING LAW , E = B·l·v, OFTEN ERRONEOUSLY ARE CONSIDERED AS MERELY DIFFERENT WAYS OF EXPRESSING THE SAME PHENOMENA. THIS ARTICLE ATTEMPTS TO DISPEL THE CONFUSION SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT OF ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION"  (Cohn, 1949)

Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 02:12:38 AM
Nothing that you have said challenges Faraday's Law of Induction.  You have pointed out the distinction between Faraday's Law that is expressed in terms of physical motion, with the more general form that is expressed in terms of changing flux density.  Faraday's Law is a subset of the general form.
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: forest on June 12, 2014, 09:00:55 AM
Nothing that you have said challenges Faraday's Law of Induction.  You have pointed out the distinction between Faraday's Law that is expressed in terms of physical motion, with the more general form that is expressed in terms of changing flux density.  Faraday's Law is a subset of the general form.

Where is that "general form" ? All I see is two different equations, one working when flux is changing and one when flux is stable.
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: MarkE on June 12, 2014, 09:22:54 AM
Where is that "general form" ? All I see is two different equations, one working when flux is changing and one when flux is stable.
Both equations boil down to induced EMF being the result of and proportional to the cross product of the conductor length and the time rate of change of flux density perpendicular to the conductor.
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on June 12, 2014, 01:25:27 PM

As all universal laws in nature, it would be great to find an common underlining principle which could explain both phenomena

Here I link some very interesting documents:

“Electromagnetic induction without magnetic field”   (Hooper-Monstein effect)  ( see pdf below )  http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/hoopmnst.htm (http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/hoopmnst.htm)

This comes from the work from Hooper ( http://www.rexresearch.com/hooper/horizon.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/hooper/horizon.htm) ), Monstein ( http://www.rexresearch.com/monstein/monstein.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/monstein/monstein.htm) )  and Crane ( see pictures below , http://www.rqm.ch/Central%20Oscillator%20and%20SpaceQuantaMedium.pdf (http://www.rqm.ch/Central%20Oscillator%20and%20SpaceQuantaMedium.pdf) ). Crane postulate attraction a repulsion of poles as rotating fluid-like stream in the same or opposite directions. Again other scientist proposing vortex-like foundations for this behavior, also stated by Howard Johnson, Roy Davis – Crawl and others…

“Faraday Final Riddle: Does the field rotates with the magnet?  ( see pdf below )

Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: forest on June 12, 2014, 02:15:04 PM
however I see something interesting....all those theories assume a stream of inertial "something", particles or waves as a cause of magnetic field.When we use transformer we change magnetic field density or strength to induce EMF which would mean we speed  up inertial streams to get more field. That would never be OU as the same energy we get what we put into momentum of streams.
However if magnetic field is a stream, we can get it with very little work or even without work done like  in permanent magnets case.
If we have stable magnetic field and we cut it's streams with wire we diverge those streams around wire or drag them. . In fact in such case only Lenz law restrict the  amount of generated EMF.
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on June 13, 2014, 02:13:43 PM
I think that we just know the tip of the "Magnetism" iceberg. Until we do not know the foundation of Magnetism we won´t be able to derive new technology.

A very interesting video about Distinti´s theory which discredits the Faraday equation:

Regards
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on July 04, 2014, 06:01:37 PM
Hi all,

Here is another video from Distinti´s theory of electromagnetism.

Very interesting...  There are much more videos from Distinti in his Youtube channel and in his website (http://www.distinti.com/docs/ (http://www.distinti.com/docs/)):

http://www.distinti.com/docs/v1/ni.pdf (http://www.distinti.com/docs/v1/ni.pdf)

http://www.distinti.com/docs/ne.pdf (http://www.distinti.com/docs/ne.pdf)

http://www.distinti.com/docs/nm.pdf (http://www.distinti.com/docs/nm.pdf)

Are you still sure that our current accepted EM theory is completely fine?
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: forest on July 10, 2014, 08:07:20 AM
It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics—as usually understood at the present time—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor.

The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated.

But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise—assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.

Examples of this sort, together with unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relative to the "light medium," suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.

— Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies[24]
</blockquote>
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on July 11, 2014, 07:20:26 PM
Uncovering the Missing Secrets of Magnetism. New book

http://www.kathodos.com/magnetismsmall.pdf (http://www.kathodos.com/magnetismsmall.pdf)
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: MileHigh on July 12, 2014, 07:30:27 AM
EM theory is just fine.  You should study this guy's videos.

Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on July 13, 2014, 07:07:02 PM
In the Academia seems to be also some disidents views. Please revise the work by Oleg Jefimenko

Book:  Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation: A Different Approach to the Theory of Electromagnetic and Gravitational Fields

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0917406230/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0917406230/ref=oh_details_o01_s00_i00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on March 16, 2015, 01:54:07 PM
Some new findings about disident theries of EM:

The Supressed Electrodynamics of Ampere-Gauss-Weber
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html)

Joseph Henry - On the discovery of two distinct kinds of Dynamic Induction
http://www.overunity.com/14906/joseph-henry-on-the-discovery-of-two-distinct-kinds-of-dynamic-induction/ (http://www.overunity.com/14906/joseph-henry-on-the-discovery-of-two-distinct-kinds-of-dynamic-induction/)

Gennady Nikolaev - About two kinds of magnetic interaction: transverse and longitudinal magnetic interaction (New Energy Technologies, Issue #6 )

Some food for thought...
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: MarkE on March 16, 2015, 02:11:01 PM
Some new findings about disident theries of EM:

The Supressed Electrodynamics of Ampere-Gauss-Weber
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html)

Joseph Henry - On the discovery of two distinct kinds of Dynamic Induction
http://www.overunity.com/14906/joseph-henry-on-the-discovery-of-two-distinct-kinds-of-dynamic-induction/ (http://www.overunity.com/14906/joseph-henry-on-the-discovery-of-two-distinct-kinds-of-dynamic-induction/)

Gennady Nikolaev - About two kinds of magnetic interaction: transverse and longitudinal magnetic interaction (New Energy Technologies, Issue #6 )

Some food for thought...
Do you mean that these ideas are new to you?  Your first reference is about 14 years old.  I skimmed the article and was not favorably impressed.
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: sadang on March 16, 2015, 05:24:03 PM
Good articles hanon. The last one of Nikolaev I did not read until today. Any article that emphasize a different phenomena regarded the magnetism and make it to not fit in the current scientific paradigm, is more valuable for me than an entire academic library. Here is an another article about non-conventional magnetism, translated as "The Game of Toroids"!
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on March 17, 2015, 11:42:05 PM
Another dissident scientist whose experiments did not agree with Maxwell equation whas Stefan Marinov. His death is covered by mistery. He felt down from a staircase in a building, some people say it was a  suicide , others that he was murdered because he was about to release his free energy findings. As no magazine wanted to publish his work, he finally decided to publish it into New Scientist (1986) into the advertisement section. I think he was friend of Gennady Nikolaev.

I want to create in this thread a repository with all the theories that suggest that Maxwell equations are not complete.

Regards

Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: sadang on March 18, 2015, 08:05:41 AM
Stefan Marinov was the most recent scientist who dared to risk his professional and social status in his trying to pass the inquisitorial per-review method which reject what don't fit in the bible of the current scientific dogma.

Bellow are two articles of Marinov; first is the main important public article written in 1996, and the second is about the displacement current, both related to current electromagnetic theory and the nowadays wrong implemented and promoted Maxwell's equations.

And it should be recalled here that Stefan Marinov was the only one (at least according to my knowledge) who managed to replicate the Testatika energy generator.
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on March 19, 2015, 12:55:38 PM
Thank you for the great info Sadang. Yesterday I was searching for a site where I could read in text format the article Annus Horribilis by Stefan Marinov in Nature as an advertisement ( for easy reading). It is full of interesting info. For me it is clear that our current Maxwell theory is not complete, it is just the tip of the iceberg:

http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-marin.htm (http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-marin.htm)

Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: sadang on March 19, 2015, 02:27:29 PM
It was my pleasure to post on your topic. And thanks for article of Nikolaev. I know about that site for many years. Marinov has many other extremely valuable articles and books, that emphasize many gaps in the current scientific paradigm. Of course there are many others, but with not a so higher importance as of him. Let's place in this topic only articles related to Maxwell's system of equations and electromagnetism.
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on March 19, 2015, 02:47:54 PM
Sadang, if you are interested you should watch some videos from Distinti about his findings and theory of EM. He also propose a modifi ation to Maxwell equations with some longitudinal component. This video is pure genius, but he has some more videos in his channel, one discrediting also the displacement currents:

I think he could be in the right path
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on March 19, 2015, 05:04:00 PM
Hi all,

I have found a book from Nikolaev (2003) with his EM theory. I found it in russian so I have used Google translator to get this english version, that I attach in pdf. Book: Gennady Nikolaev - Modern electrodynamics and the causes of its paradoxical nature. Theories, Experiments, Paradoxes - 2003

It is curious but in some sites this books include a foreword by Stefan Marinov that I suppose that Nikolaev added to his book. I copy here the foreword by Marinov:

FOREWORD ( by Stefan Marinov ) (used by Nikolaev in his book)
(Source of the Foreword: http://bourabai.ru/nikolaev/electro01.htm )

We will not argue, we calculate ...
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
... and measure.

Gennady Nikolayev and I met at the II International Conference on space, time
and gravity in St. Petersburg in September 1991, but some of his most
interesting preprints I read a quarter of a century ago, when I lived in Bulgaria.
During the conference, we spent more time in my room at the "Leningrad" than
in the conference room, for spent Nikolaev and some other Russian physicists
experiments, which he told me were a hundred times more interesting than the
reports at the conference.
Any physics student, faced with electromagnetism, notes that there is
"something wrong", but under the influence of authority of textbooks and
professors every student tries any contradictions and absurdities "sweep under
the carpet," as all the authors of textbooks and all the professors did the same
as when they themselves were students.
My "ferment" lasted much longer, and under the influence of remarkable
experiments on electromagnetic induction Cuban physicist Francisco Muller and
my own on the measurement of the absolute velocity of the Earth, rejects the
principle of relativity and equivalence, I began to finally tempered
ikonoklastom. But I must say that, although I have several times refused the
Lorenz equations, Grassmann and again raised his flag on it, by 1991, this
equation was I firmly accepted as true.
And Nikolaev experiments showed me that in no way could be linked to the
Lorentz equation (Grassmann name will be omitted). I literally lost sleep and
rest and Nikolayev said: "Gennady, I built the whole" my "electromagnetism on
the Lorenz equations, I was able to bring his impeccable logic of mathematical
equations Coulomb and Neumann on electric and magnetic energy of two
charges, and now you show up with their experiments that they say, This
equation is not true! That restructuring, which started you in your kingdom-state,
is nothing compared the restructuring, which you cause in electromagnetism. I
find it hard to reshape my books: I'm old, I'm tired. " Nikolaev said, "The sooner
you rebuilt, the easier it will attain salvation. Do not rebuilt - do not you will be
saved!" And, back in Graz, I began to "rebuild". Again felt again the derivation of
formulas, compared with experiments. Then he repeated some of the
experiments Nicholas. The effects were the same as that described Nikolaev in
his monograph in 1986, tapped on a typewriter, which he kindly gave me. This
monograph for an improved form of the reader holds in his hands now.
Thus, the equation of Lorentz "bursting at the seams." A cylindrical magnet that
axial plane cut in half, and one half is inverted (magnetic forces make it
inverting yourself) creates a cutting plane near the magnetic field which acts on
the current longitudinal forces (according to the equation of Lorentz force, which
acts on the magnet currents always perpendicular to the latter). This field
Nikolaev called scalar magnetic field, and the above-described magnet in honor
of Siberian Nikolayev I called Siberian KOLYA (SIBERIAN COLIU - give its
English transcription, because the magnet is much more known in English
literature than in Russian). It turned out, it means: for two hundred years of
electromagnetism mankind has not noticed that, besides the magnetic field B,
which we call the vector magnetic field, there is a scalar magnetic field S. So at
the current element Idr are two forces, Lorentz and Nikolaev.

F = F_lor + F_nik = Idr x B / c + Idr S / c .

But the most interesting result, which is the scalar magnetic field is as
follows. Everyone knows that when using the first three fingers of the right hand
can be shown that if a piece of wire with sliding contacts at its ends to move in a
plane perpendicular to the magnetic field vector B in the direction perpendicular
to the wire, the current is induced in such a direction that interaction of this field
with the induced current in the leads to the inhibition of the wire. This is a wellknown
law of Lenz, the first term in the above formula gives its mathematical
justification. If, however, with only one finger right or left hand reader will try to
establish which will induce a current in a wire with sliding contacts, which he will
move in the direction of the wire in a magnetic field with a scalar S, then, to my
amazement, the reader will find that the induced current will not slow down the
movement of the wire, and will help her move. This can be called antilents
effect. Of this effect, which the reader can immediately be verified
experimentally, if at hand magnet SIBERIAN Kolya, it follows that using scalar
magnetic field can build perpetual motion. I think this will be enough to become
Express the vector magnetic field B through the electric charges q i Vi
their speed and distance from the observation point Ti is very easy, if
you enter the vector magnetic potential A, for

B = rotA = rot Sum(qi·vi/cri)

But express S in terms of qi, Vj and rj was not so easy. The formula for S, which
I proposed and which to this day has not entered into conflict with any of the
experiments I know where there is a longitudinal movement of a piece of wire or
induction currents in the longitudinal motion piece of wire, the following:

S = -divA - Sum( (qi·vi·n)(ri·n)/cri^3 )

where n = dr / dr - unit vector in the direction of the current element Idr. It is
possible that this formula should take a factor of "1/2". All I know of experiments
on longitudinal movement of the wire, including my own, are of good quality,
and yet the presence or absence of the coefficient "1/2" is not set.
I should note that the first who observed at the beginning of the century the
longitudinal motion of a piece of wire with sliding contacts, is an American
engineer Carl Hering. These effects are described in his review article in the
American Journal TRANS. AM. INST. EL.ENG., 42, 311 (1923), which I
reprinted in my journal DEUTSCHE PHYSIK, 1 (3), 41 (1992).
The last three years of my experimental and theoretical work, in addition to
efforts to launch a perpetual motion magnet SIBERIAN Kolya, were devoted to
the correct conclusion of the fundamental equations of electromagnetism, which
should replace the wrong Lorentz equation. The first equation, which I proposed
and named in honor of Nikolayev Mykolaiv equation that already contains a
scalar field S in the above form. I sent this equation Nikolaev. He spoke
critically. Taking into account the guidance of the "leader", I suggested a new
equation is called the second equation of Nikolaev. Nikolaev with this equation
as if agreed, but wrote me in a letter that equation, I suggest, should be called
by its name. Soon I will put experiments (see. DEUTSCHE PHYSIK, 3 (11), 5
(1994)), which is in contradiction with the first and second equations Nikolaev
(these names I keep to this day, because once the baby is named Ivan, the can
not be when he's a year old, began to call him Peter). Then, in late 1993, I
proposed a new equation that described by the Marinov equation. It was a
beautiful elegant equation is simple symmetrization was obtained from the
equation Grassmann, ie from the Lorenz equations, and three years I thought
this equation, all effects due to the scalar magnetic field S, which is equal to the
above value, multiplied by a factor of "1/2".The journal DEUTSCHE PHYSIK
reader will find accurate calculation of the scalar magnetic field generated by an
infinitely long cylinder and ring magnets SIBERIAN Kolya, which are the basic
elements of perpetual motion machines working on the scalar magnetic field.
But a month ago, I set up an experiment, which is in contradiction with the
Marinov equation, because this equation, in addition to the vector magnetic field
B, input, and other vector magnetic field B Mar , which in the experiments were
found.
Since the question of what should be the fundamental equation in
electromagnetism, is a matter of great importance and since I was unable to
find this equation, I announced a contest with a prize of \$ 100 000. This contest
will be announced in the near future in the American Journal GALILEAN
ELECTRODYNAMICS and journal DEUTSCHE PHYSIK.
Conditions of competition are as follows:
I pay \$ 100 000 to the researcher, who will offer the formula (usually scheme),
with whose help it will be possible to count the power and torque (with respect
to an arbitrary axis) that closed circuit with a current I i acts on the other closed
loop with current I or on the side of the latter, associated with the sliding
contacts rest. The money will be paid, if I'm not able to demonstrate an
experiment that would enter into conflict with this formula. If the applicant does
not agree that my "kontreksperiment" is falsifying, it may file an objection, and
editor GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS should appoint a committee of three
university professors, who must decide whether or not my experiment falsifying
or not. If a majority of the Commission request that the experiment is not
falsifying, I'll pay the aforementioned amounts, and 2 000 dollars to each of the
committee members. However, if the Commission decides that the experiment
is falsifying, the applicant does not receive anything, but will have to pay for
2000 dollars to each of the professors.
I call on all Russian physicists strain minds. \$ 100 000 - this is almost a Nobel
prize and will be awarded for the work, not the phantasmagoria. While task that
I set, it seems extremely simple. But it only seems that way! Otherwise 100,000
dollars out of my pocket, I would not pull out.
In concluding this preface, I can only say the following. Although Nicholas has
published many articles in Russian physics journals, his name and his
revolutionary discoveries known much more in the West (Japan include in the
"West"), than in Russia. Let us hope that the publication of this monograph will
help Russian physicists and electrical engineers to quickly understand what the
torch was lit in Siberia.
Stefan Marinov,
Director of the Institute for Fundamental Physics,
City Graz, Austria

.
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: sm0ky2 on March 19, 2015, 06:43:36 PM
When a conductor cuts the lines of flux in a "uniform" magnetic field,
the current induced in the conductor, induces a subsequent magnetic field, which results in a change in flux.
When you work the change in flux equation backwards using this value, you find that both equations are applicable.
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on March 23, 2015, 09:32:20 PM

Novosibirsk Scientist Refutes Physics Law Established about Two Hundred years Ago

Simultaneous Bidirectional Flux Induction for New Transformer Technology

Novosibirsk scientist, Professor of Harbin Polytechnic Institute, Head of Research and Technical Center 'Virus' Gennady Markov came out with a suggestion that the electromagnetic induction law discovered by Faraday in 1831 is not actually a law. According to Faraday, a magnetic flux in a ferromagnetic core of the transformer can be induced only in one direction. By Markov's theory the magnetic flux in a conductor can be induced simultaneously in both opposite directions. After several years of experimenting and practical studies Markov managed to prove the validity of his theory, develop an operable transformer on its base and obtain several international patents for his invention. In contrast to regular transformer, Markov's transformer has a vertically extended form and instead of the primary and secondary windings it has two primary windings with oncoming magnetic fluxes. By the new induction law, 'new' transformers can induce necessary voltage even from 'the worst iron' and can have considerably reduced sizes.

Quote
"In 1831 Faraday discovered electromagnetic induction - says Gennady Markov. - Then his ideas developed by Maxwell. After that, more than 160 years, no one was able to advance electrodynamics in the fundamental terms of a step. And eight years ago, I applied for an international patent, valid in 20 countries of the world, I created a transformer, which has already received four Russian patent. And my discovery was made "in spite of the laws of " the great physicists . Faraday , the magnetic fluxes in the yoke to successively shape - the contour in one direction. And only then works transformer . And I offered to do the opposite : to take the coil with the same number of turns and turn them towards each other . At the same time creates an equal number of turns and equal magnetic fluxes reaching towards each other, which cancel each other , but not destroyed ( as Faraday and Maxwell, they must be destroyed .) I discovered a new law : the principle of superposition of magnetic fields in a ferromagnetic material. The superposition - is the addition of fields. The essence of the law is that the magnetic fields that are mutually compensated , but not destroyed . And here is the word " but not destroyed " and is the key to open my law."

http://www.rexresearch.com/markov/markov.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/markov/markov.htm)
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on March 30, 2015, 06:42:20 PM
" IF A WIRE IS BEING  MOVED IN SCALAR MAGNETIC
FIELD 'S' THEN CURRENT, WHICH IS INDUCED INSIDE IT,
WILL NOT DECELERATE THE CONDUCTOR MOVEMENT BUT
HELP ITS MOVEMENT.

THEREFORE, HAVING "SIBERIAN KOLYA" MAGNET, BY
MEANS OF SCALAR MAGNETIC FIELD IT IS POSSIBLE
TO DESIGN PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES.   "

From the preface by Stefan Marinov to the book
by Gennady V. Nikolaev, "Scientific Vacuum. Crisis in
Experimental Physics. Does the way out exist?" Tomks, 1999.

http://electricaleather.com/d/358095/d/nikolayevg.v.elektrodinamikafizicheskogovakuuma.pdf (http://electricaleather.com/d/358095/d/nikolayevg.v.elektrodinamikafizicheskogovakuuma.pdf)

http://bourabai.ru/nikolaev/crisis.htm (http://bourabai.ru/nikolaev/crisis.htm)

.
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: sadang on March 30, 2015, 07:42:43 PM
Scalar and/or longitudinal waves are are not practical concepts. The vectorial and transversal waves are enough to eplain unusual phenomena? Let's see what has Stefan Marinov to say about a subject related to the above concepts, namely about Maxwell-Lorentz equations.
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on March 31, 2015, 12:27:19 AM

I did not know the whole history of Marinov but I guess that that paper was published before 1990 or so. I think that Marinov later met with Nikolaev who persuaded him to look for longitudinal components to explain his results. In fact if your revise the two advertisements in Nature posted before it is clear the difference in his equations. It is just my guess.

The good thing about Marinov and Nikolaev is that they were two experimentalists. I like Physics based on experiments. Not just mathematical formulation based on nothing or just mind games.

Regards
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: sadang on March 31, 2015, 08:33:20 AM
I don't know of what difference in his equations you talk, because the first advertisement is about so called "Faraday paradox" or the "relativity principle" which is wrong and the second one is about the nonexistence of displacement current. However, for me Nicolaev is a great surprise, because I did not know him and I did not read his works so far. Unfortunately I've not found many works in English.
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on April 01, 2015, 06:24:34 PM
I was refering to the 1986 advertisement called "Marinov to the world Scientific Conscience" in post #15 and the 1996 advertisement called "Marinov: Annus Horribilis" published in post #16 and #17. Reading post #20 seems that MArinov and Nikolaev met in 1991 and Nikolaev persuaded him to take into account the scalar magnetic field as the cause of their results.

All,

It seems that many other scientists also predict longitudinal forces not includen in curent theory. I add here two links, you can navigate along those websites and grasp deep into those subjects. One is related to Ampere longitudinal force, theory erradicated after the advent of relativity theory. I think that Weber also developed the ampere findings into a electrodynamics theory([size=78%]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber_electrodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weber_electrodynamics)[/size][size=78%]) and others as ([/size][size=78%]http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEWELBOOK.html (http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEWELBOOK.html)[/size][size=78%]).[/size]

http://www.ampere.cnrs.fr/parcourspedagogique/zoom/courant/force/index-en.php (http://www.ampere.cnrs.fr/parcourspedagogique/zoom/courant/force/index-en.php)

http://members.tele2.nl/kovavla/experiments.html (http://members.tele2.nl/kovavla/experiments.html)

Science should look back to recover the lost path as consecuence of following current uncomplete EM theory.

Regards
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on April 18, 2015, 01:50:06 AM
Three interesting reading about Ampere Electrodynamics, the first one contains a very interesting experiment to test. those articles explains why it was suppressed and now Maxwell is known and Ampere electrodynamics is sadly forgotten.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html)

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/sci_techs/3415weber.html (http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/sci_techs/3415weber.html)

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Atomic_Science.pdf (http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/Atomic_Science.pdf)

Experiment:  Is anyone willing to do it and post a video?

"  About two months ago, I read in a column by Jeffery Kooistra in Infinite Energy magazine (Issue 27, 1999) of a simple and paradoxical experiment, originally proposed by Dr. Peter Graneau, the author of Ampère-Neumann Electrodynamics in Metals and other works. The result so fascinated me that I decided to reproduce the experiment on my own. Two 42-inch lengths of half-inch (i.d.) copper pipe were mounted, each on a separate length of 1 x 3 lumber, and laid parallel to one another, like rails, about 12 inches apart. The opposite terminals of a 12-volt automotive battery were connected to the copper rails. When the circuit is completed, by placing a 24-inch length of copper pipe perpendicularly across the two parallel pipes, the shorter pipe begins to roll down the track, accelerating to the end, and sparking and sputtering as it goes in a delightful display. One familiar with the Ampère angular force (see 21st Century, Fall 1996, “The Atomic Science Textbooks Don’t Teach,” p. 21), will see that an explanation based on repulsion between elements of current in the parallel rods, and those in the movable, perpendicular portion of the circuit, is at hand—although, the same motion can be accounted for by thealgebraically equivalent i x B forces considered in Maxwell’s formulations.
The paradox which the designer of the experiment wished to demonstrate comes in the next part. If we replace the 24-inch copper pipe with an equivalent length of steel pipe, the steel pipe rolls in the opposite direction! Why? I asked Dr. Graneau, who was kind enough to provoke my added interest by telling me that he didn’t know, and that he didn’t know of anybody who did.  "
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: sadang on April 18, 2015, 08:14:00 PM
Interesting experiment. I tried with a lab source of 5A, but the max. current is too small. I can confirm there is a tendency for this movement, but the effect is not fully observable with this setup. However at a short research on the net I found the original experiment of Ampere. here it is:
- http://www.ampere.cnrs.fr/parcourspedagogique/zoom/courant/formule/index-en.php (http://www.ampere.cnrs.fr/parcourspedagogique/zoom/courant/formule/index-en.php)

Maybe someone with a car battery can replicate this experiment.
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: Enjoykin on April 23, 2015, 09:10:32 PM

I have decided to post here informations about scalar electromagnetic filed - because i want to evade nonsence-flooding of top valuable information and really got tired of obscurantists which promote own ignorance and lack of knowledge.

Enjoyking
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: Enjoykin on April 23, 2015, 09:51:47 PM
Gennadiy Vasilevitch Nikolaev and his science followers - Scientific books

Г.В.Николаев - Тайны электромагнетизма и свободная энергия RUS.djvu
Научный вакуум. Кризис в фундаментальной физике. Есть ли выход.djvu
Непротиворечивая Электродинамика. Теория, эксперименты, парадоксы. Книга 1 1997.djvu
1-1.Р.Г. Сигалов. Новые исследования движущих сил магнитного поля. 1965 год.djvu
1-2. Р.Г. Сигалов.Новые исследования движущих сил магнитного поля. 2-е дополненное издание - 1975 год.djvu
G.V.Nikolaev1997- Elektrodnamika.djvu
Samarin 2010 RUS.djvu
Р.Г.Сигалов и др. Динамическое действие электромагнитных полей.1967.djvu
Современная электродинамика и причины её парадоксальности. 2003 г.djvu
Томилин. О свойствах векторного электродинамического потенциала.doc
Томилин. Обобщенная электродинамика.pdf
Томилин. Основы обобщенной электродинамики. Части I,II,III .pdf
Томилин. Основы обобщенной электродинамики. Части IV, V. Прикладные вопросы.pdf
Томилин. Основы обобщенной электродинамики. Части IV, V. Прикладные вопросы_2.pdf
Томилин. Экспериментальное исследование продольного электромагнитного взаимодействия.pdf
Томилин. Экспериментальное исследование продольного электромагнитного взаимодействия_2.pdf
Магнит Николаева Г.В..png
Томилин. Обобщенная электродинамика и перспективы развития новых технологий.ppt
Томилин. Обобщенная электродинамика и перспективы развития новых технологий_2.ppt
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: Enjoykin on April 23, 2015, 09:55:27 PM
/2
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: Enjoykin on April 23, 2015, 10:01:01 PM
/3
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: Enjoykin on April 23, 2015, 10:02:22 PM
/4
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: Enjoykin on April 23, 2015, 10:04:08 PM
/5
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: Enjoykin on April 23, 2015, 10:06:25 PM
/6
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: Enjoykin on April 23, 2015, 10:23:06 PM
/7
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: Enjoykin on April 23, 2015, 10:24:38 PM
/8
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: Enjoykin on April 23, 2015, 10:26:45 PM
VIDEO PRESENTATION - FEEL FREE TO COPY AND DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT CHANGING !!

Томилин. Обобщенная электродинамика и перспективы развития новых технологий.avi
Professor Tomilin - Generalize Electrodynamics and Perspectives of Development new Technologies.avi

Version 3, 29 June 2007
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

**** This document is Patent Pending according to laws of Russian Federation and International Laws.****
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: Enjoykin on April 24, 2015, 12:31:01 AM
второе магнитное поле Г.В.Николаева
second magnetic filed of Gennadiy V. Nikolaev

Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on April 24, 2015, 06:53:43 PM
Hi Enjoykin,

All that good info in welcome here. As faf as I have research Nikolaev also points to the existance of longitudinal waves (also predicted by Tesla, Meyl and others...). I think this makes a lot of sense

I have found a 2004 book by Nikolaev in OCR format. It is so long (700 pages) that Google Translator is unable to traduce it into english:

ELECTRODYNAMICS PHYSICAL VACUUM. The new concepts of the physical world
http://electricaleather.com/d/358095/d/nikolayevg.v.elektrodinamikafizicheskogovakuuma.pdf (http://electricaleather.com/d/358095/d/nikolayevg.v.elektrodinamikafizicheskogovakuuma.pdf)

Also I have found a paper by Tomilin which seems to be what it is collected in your previous video:

The Fundamentals of Generalized Electrodynamics
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0807/0807.2172.pdf (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0807/0807.2172.pdf)

Lastly this is a gift about a magnetic motor based on Siberian Colia magnets. The construction is depicted into this video:

Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: Enjoykin on April 24, 2015, 09:54:19 PM
Hello hanon !!

Thank you !! Excellent informations and videos.

I have seen you already have joined builders.huiq.com forum.  I am proposing you continue our conversation on EJJunke private forum. As i can see there are lot of nice guys and peacful place for exchange ideas and thoughts.

Reg.
Enjoykin !!
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on May 04, 2015, 01:59:04 AM
I have learnt that the equation known to calculate Lorentz force (F=qv x B) violates Newton 3rd law because action and reaction forces are not aligned. By constrast, Ampere force equation match perfectly with Newton´s Third Law. both forces are aligned. In order to hold Lorentz force as correct our dear physicists must postulate the emission of a photon to keep the conservation of momentum. Therefore, which queation is correct? ... :-\ ...

http://www.panospappas.gr/INACURACIES.htm (http://www.panospappas.gr/INACURACIES.htm)

Quote
This law of AMPERE, in 1821  1826 to the French Academy of Science, retains always action and reaction. No need for photon emission as no photon emission is experimentally  really ever observed and neveris known to occur for DC.
When the law of AMPERE and that of LORENTZ is integrated for closed circuits which only is assumed to exist they are equivalent. This is why the wrong law of Lorentz may survive!

Sadly Ampere force was buried with the arrival of Maxwell theory. Weber picked up this equation and developed his EM theory (Weber electrodynamics)

It seems that for close circuits both equation give the same results BUT ... for non closed currents / non steady currents  only Ampere law may represent longitudinal forces:

Quote
In steady DC currents, forces for closed circuits can  be distinguished numerically that are due to Ampere's or  to Lorentz's force laws (See section MAGNETS, (3c)). Also by forces due to sparks, lightning, any transient currents. can be distinguished whether they belong to one of the two laws, actually they belong only to one, that of the correct law of Ampere or to the fictitious law of Lorentz ! This is for due to the fact that these currents are transient in very short time. Let me become clear. Suppose we have a stead state current in a closed circuit. All its forces are indistinguishable in origin. Suppose the circuit is suddenly interrupted by a spark unavoidably in a gap, then in the copper parts of the circuit charges are moving very slowly, as in every metallic conductor some cm/second, on the contrary in the unavoidable spark charges may move at any high speed. THEREFORE, DUE TO THE INERTIA, THE FAST MOVING CHARGES KEEP MOVING LONGER AND CONSTITUTE AN ISOLATED CURRENT.! ISOLATED CURRENTS EXHIBIT LONGITUDINAL AMPERE FORCES, WHICH DO NOT CANCEL OUT. As a result an Ampere explosion occurs with a loud audible sound. This explosion can be explained in terms only of Ampere forces.

By the way, Nikolaev was a follower of Ampere theory in the sense that Ampere postulated that magnetic field do not exist. It is just attraction and repulsion from current circulating in each magnetized atom. Therefore Ampere just gave credit to electric field and magnetism was just a  electric consequence of rotating current in magnet´s atoms (attraction or repulsion)

Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on May 10, 2015, 07:52:06 PM
Hi,

I have found in internet a book by Gennady V. Nikolaev called:  "UNKNOWN SECRETS OF ELECTROMAGNETISM AND FREE ENERGY" (2002). It is in russian but anyway I post here because it is good to have it for a possible future reference or translation. If anyone is able to get an english translation it would be very nice...

Regards
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on May 11, 2015, 01:12:58 AM
Source of the image: New Energy Technologies, Issue 2,  Sept-Oct 2001

Gennady Nikolaev on the existance of a second magnetic field (scalar magnetic field)  --->  "...in the space where total vectorial magnetic field of two magnets is zero, the total value of scalar magnetic field of two magnets is maximal."  ..."this field do not interact with ferromagnetic materials." ....

Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on May 12, 2015, 09:57:55 PM

Marinov also proposed, as Nikolaev, the existance of a scalar magnetic field. The machines based on this scalar magnetic field were called by Marinov as "S-machines" and, in opposition to common "B-machines", those device can create overunity effect:

He proposed the magnet shape "Siberian Colia" or also "Siberian Coliu" to get that OU effect
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on May 26, 2015, 05:14:03 PM
A great lecture about WEBER ELECTRODYNAMICS  and why it is superior to Maxwell EM theory.  By Prof. Andre Koch Torres Assis in 2010. A theory developed by Ampere, Gauss, Weber, Riemann but, sadly, forgotten.

http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=More&tab1=Media&tab2=Display&id=312 (http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=More&tab1=Media&tab2=Display&id=312)

Do not miss it !!.   I attach below the slides.
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on July 20, 2015, 02:54:00 PM

A theory which predicts longitudinal forces, as been proved experimentaly, but sadly forgotten after the advent of the Maxwell equations. Please see this lecture by Prof. Andre Koch Torres Assis:

Also here some good papers about the history of this theory:  [size=78%]https://es.scribd.com/doc/272067798/Ampere-Weber-Electrodynamics-History (https://es.scribd.com/doc/272067798/Ampere-Weber-Electrodynamics-History)[/size]

Regards
Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on July 27, 2015, 01:31:33 PM
I have found references to an electrodynamics theory developed by Hertz (Hertz Electrodynamics) which does not require Special Relativity to correct the flawed points into Maxwell´s equations , and include Lorentz force into the induction equation. Therefore Lorentz force is not required as an external term to be used at the same time that Maxwell´s equations:

http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/elmag/ (http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/elmag/)

Quote from: On Hertz's Invariant Form of Maxwell's Equations  by T. E. Phipps

The failure of Maxwell's equations to exhibit invariance under the Galilean transformation was corrected by Hertz through a simple, but today largely forgotten, mathematical trick. This involves substituting total (convective) time derivatives for partial time derivatives wherever the latter appear in Maxwell's equations. By this means Hertz derived a formally Galilean-invariant covering theory of Maxwell's vacuum electrodynamics - which, however, was not space-time symmetrical

Title: Re: Is Faraday´s Induction Law correct?
Post by: hanon on July 28, 2016, 01:31:00 AM
Richard Feynman: two different phenomena in the induction, one for flux linking ( 2nd Maxwell equation) and other for flux cutting (Lorentz Force). Richard Feynman Lectures, Vol.2, Chapter 17.

Joseph Henry: two types of induction

Konstantine Meyl: two different formulations for the induction

George Cohn: two different phenomena in inductions

William J. Hooper: three different kinds of electric fields, one electrostatic field, and other two due to induction: one transformer induction, (shieldable), and one motional induction (unshieldable)