@meberbsI gave you the information but you answered me as a mathematician and not as a physicist
I gave you the information but you answered me as a mathematician and not as a physicistMr. Meberbs Miller spoke of the lost millions of dollars in the CFA and EH antennas ... I only a few thousand euros years ago in the propellantless propulsion from DC
More you do not even think that Nobel Lorentz had any reason to Maxwell about DCSince the believers in Maxwell are so many because you do not make a collection of money to build a nice displacement current antenna ?
So put some money in the faith in Maxwell that you have
@meberbsif you make a research you will find many authors that doubt of Maxwell equations
The question among us is assuming aspects of dispute that I do not care about and that goes beyond the my interests . For all there is an evangelical motto that I apply first of all for me: from their fruits you will recognize them.
In http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.6223&rep=rep1&type=pdfWe read: “In 1901 Poincaré found another weakness in displacement current theory. He showedthat when the displacement current is acted on by a magnetic field it ‘does not experienceany mechanical action according to the theory of Lorentz’….”
I add myself to Poincarè and Miller with 2 photos of my attempt to find that force between the 3 plates of a condenser http://www.calmagorod.org/pnn-la-sua-genesi/
In conclusion you should find an article where someone found the Lorentz force between the plates of a condenser OR IN OTHER PLACE due to the magnetic field from DC. You can not be allowed to give incompetence and crackpots to everyone without showing at least one example of DC magnetic field thrust for more than 140 years!
I would be happy that a maxwellist could prove that the magnetic field from DC exists and can boost. It would give proof that what I wrote inhttp://www.calmagorod.org/ could lead to a propellantless propulsion from Maxwell DC.
The comic thing that you evoke all the possible mathematical chatter (for example Liénard-Wiechert potentials and Jefimenko's equations) to avoid any experimental test that can close the question related to the mechanical action that the fatal magnetic field from DC.
And look what we read that we read in honor of Lorentz for the award of the Nobelhttps://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincitori_del_premio_Nobel_per_la_fisica …In certain respects however Maxwell's theory of light was inadequate, in that it left individual phenomena unexplained. The greatest credit for the further development of the electromagnetic theory of light is due to Professor Lorentz, whose theoretical work on this subject has borne the richest fruit. While Maxwell's theory is free from any assumptions of an atomistic nature, Lorentz starts from the hypothesis that in matter extremely small particles, called electrons, are the carriers of certain specific charges. These electrons move freely in so-called conductors and thus produce an electrical current, whereas in non-conductors their movement is apparent through electrical resistance. ...
@meberbs>As I have said many times, displacement current is not a physical current, just a rate of change of the >fields, so the concept of it experiencing a "mechanical action" doesn't make sense.>You continually repeating this same mistake indicates that you haven't read anything I have written, or >are deliberately ignoring it.still philosophy meberbs?You told me that the variation of the electric field generates the magnetic field H ... whether it is current or not I do not care we are talking about the magnetic field that must be a physical observable and not metaphysical .It seems to me that you run away when you ask for precise answers ....Again, does the magnetic field exist from DC?and those link that for you are DC measures are the usual fireflies for lanterns where you passed off for DC magnetic fields of another nature and yet without quadrature
>No, Maxwell's equations prohibit "propellantless thrust" You must say better all classic electrodynamics prohibit "propellantless thrust" My answer: False but will know it later
>other than the special case of a photon rocketphotonic propulsion is for incompetent.
We could argue eternally about the DC and not come to any shared conclusion.I would like to point out some things:1) Maxwell's equations work well as long as someone does not get the psychic disturbance to go and measure the magnetic field from DC
2) Even without Mr. Maxwell we would have developed electromagnetism
3) Through all the classical electrodynamics DIFFERENTLY USED, the principle of action and reaction can be violated. I have commitments to other people for commercial and patent pnn objectives and I can not say NOW how to do it
>I gave you multiple links to direct measurements of the magnetic field. >There is a changing> electric field, and there is a magnetic field that exists exactly as predicted.Then it is an additional mystery that we can not use the magnetic field from DC for the Lorentz force
... You are the one making metaphysical statements with your "fields of another nature." The field is the field. Also, "without quadrature" is not a counterargument...
@meberbs>By "differently used" you mean "wrong."PNN is based on classical electrodynamics, there are no strange fields or ad hoc conjectures as for some theories on emdrive. From this it follows only one thing: that you unfortunately do not know how to use classical electrodynamics at best.
>Here's some facts:>-Any decent textbook contradicts you, and supports that momentum conservation> is inherent to classical electrodynamics.With the pnn the electrodynamic field preserves the total momentum, as says dr. Moretti who clearly shows in www.asps.it/azione.htm that the principle of action and reaction does not make sense in electrodynamics
>-Your statement is based on the assumption that you can't possibly be making a mistakeAs I said with the pnn the basic laws of electrodynamics are not violated. Moreover, I can only say that the violation of Newton's III principle also obliges us to rewrite the law of inertia, which unfortunately is no longer that of Newton. There are also other problems that I find premature to deal with now
>-I have already pointed out simple, basic mistakes you have made in doing electrodynamics.>-You haven't actually pointed to any mistakes I have made (And I do make mistakes, >but haven't done so in this thread.)You carefully avoid answering if the magnetic field from DC can or does not generate thrust through the Lorentz force.
I say that this magnetic field can not generate thrust because it DOES NOT EXIST that then is the thought of Poincarè and Miller and of Lorentz himself.
As long as you are not going to measure any thrust through that field, you can pass magnetic fields from DC to magnetic fields that do not originate from the displacement current.
>Conclusion: You are making up insults (not just to me, but everyone who has written an >electrodynamics textbook) because you refuse to acknowledge that you can be wrong. The >evidence points to the exact opposite of your statement, indicating that you are the one who >doesn't understand electrodynamics.Conclusion: I invite you to prudence and patience mr. Meberbs because you could have strong contradictions if the pnn works
@ meberbsGood mr. meberbs I think we have all the modern tools to come to an end to the definitive and experimental conclusions of this rather than age-old dispute over the existence of the magnetic field of the displacement current.You tells me>I offered multiple proofs that the magnetic field exists exactly as described by Maxwell's >equations.Ok I sayOn my opinion this is the single and indisputable experiment to detect the magnetic field from displacement current remains the following … which unfortunately costs.And with this experiment we will also measure the impedance of the vacuum
I have found this but the calibration seems to have nothing to do with the impedance of the vacuum.
Most Narda NY survey instruments are designed so that the meter and probes are calibrated independently of each other. The 8100, 8200, 8600, 8700 and NBM series equipment can have probes and meters interchanged within the same series with- out in any way affecting calibration. The 8500 and NIM series are supplied as a single probe and meter that are calibrated as a set. Personal monitors and area monitors are calibrated as sets.Meters (except the 8500 series) are calibrated by using a precise DC voltage that relates to the full scale measurement range of the probes in that series.
Probes are calibrated by placing them in precise RF fields using either TEM cells or free field environments. The RF field strength is normally established to be equal to 5.0% of the full scale rating of the probe. For example, to calibrate a model 8721 electric field probe, which is rated at 20 mW/cm2, an electric field equal to 1.0 mW/cm2 is established at each calibration frequency.
I believe that in the end when I have the appropriate resources I will end up buying such probes and organizing an adequate experimental setup to close a question that is now centuries old.Of course I always hope someone has links to what you claims.
no one has told me what you say