Failed again: in the video the setup has nonuniform magnetic field and relative motion between charges and magnetic field is accelerated...
So, again the second setup is unrelated and you have no idea how to construct your own...
I on the other hand have provided 3 examples of experimental setups where Lorentz law fails and Orman Force and low is supported as if acceleration is null Orman Force is null...
Perhaps you should provide an example of the above from academic sources as you claim that there are countless examples...
By the way, what example in the video shows is Faraday's generator where there is physical brushing against conductive metal surface... With contact less electric field probes of modern oscilloscope the EMF is zero...
And there are no brush-less Faraday's generators...
Someone else confirms Orman Force law which predicts when acceleration in motion of the charges is zero the EMF in wire will also be zero:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=XSWwrvT_c8w
Failed again: in the video the setup has nonuniform magnetic field and relative motion between charges and magnetic field is accelerated...Again, the Lorentz force equation uses instantaneous velocity, so your made up requirement for constant velocity is meaningless. In any example, the acceleration induced by the magnetic field changes the velocity, so as soon as you start running the experiment, the condition is lost anyway. (Though magnetic fields on their own only change the direction of velocity.)So, again the second setup is unrelated and you have no idea how to construct your own...I know how to construct my own, but I have no reason to do so due to the effectively unlimited number of already existing examples. You still haven't explained why all of modern technology designed using Lorentz force still works.I on the other hand have provided 3 examples of experimental setups where Lorentz law fails and Orman Force and low is supported as if acceleration is null Orman Force is null...You have provided 0 examples where the Lorentz force fails, as the Lorentz force does not predict EMF for constant motion of a loop of wire through a uniform magnetic field. It is not clear from your experimental descriptions exactly what you did, but my guess at the second one is that you were spinning a magnet around its pole, which doesn't change the field. For the final paper you cited, you seem to have failed to notice they talk only of a singular, linear wire, not a loop. To actually make use of the EMF, you would need a loop, and the loop would have to extend outside the uniform magnetic field, otherwise the EMF from opposite sides of the loop would cancel out. Your claims of the Lorentz force not working are all based on your own misunderstandings of the Lorentz force and incorrect (strawman) claims that the Lorentz force only applies to constant velocity.Perhaps you should provide an example of the above from academic sources as you claim that there are countless examples...The original experiments were done in the 1800s. Straightforward demonstrations of it are classroom exercises, like the ones I have provided you. Anything else is application, and I have already listed basic applications.By the way, what example in the video shows is Faraday's generator where there is physical brushing against conductive metal surface... With contact less electric field probes of modern oscilloscope the EMF is zero...
And there are no brush-less Faraday's generators...More unsupported assertions. If friction with the brush caused anything (like a static charge from socks on carpet), the results in the video I provided would not have changed sign with the direction of spin of the disc.
Again, you have yet to give your so-called force law a form that results in consistent units. You can't solve anything with it without doing that. Also, you have not demonstrated using it for any practical application, doing numerical calculations would quickly result in you running into problems with the inconsistent units you are using.
It is trivial that your made up law cannot explain the fact that the motion in the first link I provided is approximately a circle. If there was any significant backwards acceleration as you claim (there isn't) in the experiment that implies the magnetic force is perpendicular to the direction of acceleration to get the loop started. After that though acceleration of the electrons is clearly a constant pointing to the center of the circle, so if that is being maintained by the magnetic field, suddenly your law has to change to force being parallel to the acceleration instead of perpendicular. Also to support the claim I just made that the acceleration is constant towards the center: that is true due to centripetal acceleration of v^2/r. Radius is obviously constant, and if the velocity was not constant, the the component of acceleration towards the center required to maintain constant radius would change non-linearly. This is not supported by the linear equation you wrote up.
Also, if there was significant acceleration back towards the exit of the electron gun, you would get a distorted shape, not a circle that ends up moving away from the electron gun at the end, further disproving your claim that the speed of the electrons was anything but constant.
That is 4 different issues with your claim from just 1 experiment
-units don't work
-direction of force relative to acceleration is undefined, and changes with time in this experiment
-force claimed by you is not consistent with experiment resulting in a nice circle.
-claims that the anode causes acceleration are not supported by the dataSomeone else confirms Orman Force law which predicts when acceleration in motion of the charges is zero the EMF in wire will also be zero:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=XSWwrvT_c8wThe magnet is spinning around what is presumably its pole. This does not produce a changing magnetic flux through the loop of wire, so the net EMF for the whole loop is expected to be 0. The entire setup is backwards and inside out compared to a homopolar generator (which is what he calls his device). For the incorrect setup he built, the result he got is what is expected.
Why no one can understand my design? It is so simple and with complete theoretical support.
Yes, I expected that you would avoid providing an example of your own or from academic sources because you have no clue and there is none from academia...
So, I will let you have the last answer...
Yes, I expected that you would avoid providing an example of your own or from academic sources because you have no clue and there is none from academia...As I said, the original experiments were done over a hundred years ago, and it is not my responsibility to look them up for you. I have given you modern experiments, and answered all of your objections to them. You ask for contradictory things like particles accelerating and not accelerating at the same time. As I have repeatedly suggested, you need to pick up a textbook on electrodynamics, because most of the claims you have made about what the Lorentz force says are simply not what electrodynamics actually predicts.So, I will let you have the last answer...Then I want you to actually give me some answers. You have simply ignored roughly 90% of what I have explained to you, and refuse to acknowledge the fundamental inconsistencies of your claims.
Stop making false statements...
It is I who define mathematical model and it is my discovery and that is why I named it Orman Force...
You cannot even make a simple experimental setup that would confirm or invalidate Lorentz force...
Already have Rowland Institute evaluating my paper and reconstructing the experimental setups...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowland_Institute_for_Science
You had your last word so don't try to intimidate me with your silly math claims...
OK, I'm going to throw in my two cents here.
Mathew,
Found your paper somewhere (not on you tube) where I could actually read it....
About the toroid held by the rotating magnet:
According to Lorentz Force, current induced in the wires closest to the magnet will be in the same direction as the current induced in the wires furthest from the magnet. All current will flow either toward the center of the magnet or toward the outside of the magnet. In other words, the current induced on the wires closest to the magnet will be canceled by the current induced on the wires furthest from the magnet. Total current from this setup should be zero. So this agrees with Lorentz Force.
The whole reason for using a toroidal inductor or transformer is to eliminate magnetic interference from sources outside of the toroid. Magnetic fields on the inside of the coil will produce much more interesting results.
The inverse is also true, if you want to make a nail into an electromagnet you wind the wire around the outside of the nail. Putting a nail outside of a coil of wire will not make an electromagnet.
Hopefully this will help you understand Lorentz Force just a little better.
The link to my paper in PDF format is in the description underneath the video bu I paste it here too...
http://www.tyrell-innovations.com/share/OrmanForce.pdf
The toroidal coil in my setup is to multiply the EMF output and it does not cancel because magnetic field strength of the magnet decays exponentially from the surface so the wire section parallel and the closest to surface of the magnet has several times large EMF than the farther parallel section of wire...
I confirmed that by making the magnet wobble while spinning by 0.5mm which creates effect of AC induction and I got sinusoidal EMF as expected...
The link to my paper in PDF format is in the description underneath the video bu I paste it here too...
http://www.tyrell-innovations.com/share/OrmanForce.pdf
The toroidal coil in my setup is to multiply the EMF output and it does not cancel because magnetic field strength of the magnet decays exponentially from the surface so the wire section parallel and the closest to surface of the magnet has several times large EMF than the farther parallel section of wire...
I confirmed that by making the magnet wobble while spinning by 0.5mm which creates effect of AC induction and I got sinusoidal EMF as expected...The magnetic strength does not decay as it gets further from the magnet, but curls around from the north pole to the south pole. If you want a good idea of the magnetic field, draw lines from the north pole to the south pole. If a line crosses into your loop it will also cross again to go out of your loop. Both crossings induce the same current in opposite directions. The reason the magnetic strength appears to decay is that the lines get further apart as you get further from the magnet. This is part of Maxwell's Equations. (The number of magnetic lines of flux that enter a volume are equal to the number of lines that leave the volume. - From Wikipedia "the sum total magnetic flux through any Gaussian surface is zero") You will have to visit Maxwell's equations as well and make your Orman Force fit in with those laws as well.
Not sure why you were getting an EMF when you wobble the magnet, this should not happen. Maybe something induced in the final loop? Was the EMF multiplied by the number of turns in the toroid or was it the same as EMF of a single loop?
Here is the field of my magnet:
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/mmk_p01-jpg.186996/
I used 10 turn rectangular coil when testing with wobble...
Maxwell does nothing when it comes to uniform magnetic field and motion of charge particles...
If you want non decaying magnetic gradient then the closest would be Helmholtz coils...
By the way if Lorentz force based EMF was in existence then we would have brush-less Faraday's homo-polar generator working as well...
Here is the field of my magnet:
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/mmk_p01-jpg.186996/
I used 10 turn rectangular coil when testing with wobble...
Maxwell does nothing when it comes to uniform magnetic field and motion of charge particles...
If you want non decaying magnetic gradient then the closest would be Helmholtz coils...
By the way if Lorentz force based EMF was in existence then we would have brush-less Faraday's homo-polar generator working as well...As dustinthewind says in his post, rotating a magnet around it's axis is not expected to induce emf, he has a detailed explanation, but the simple version is the total magnetic field flux through the loop isn't changing.
Plus your big circular coil is such that the way you hold it in the picture has the magnetic field crossing parallel to the loops, so there is minimal flux. You have built an entirely different setup than the what the online calculator you linked to assumes.
Maxwell's equations do in fact have left the situation, and the predict the results that you got. Your wobble experiment is the only one that sounds like it should generate emf, and it was (just sounds like because your exact setup details are not well described.)
Your claim that the Lorentz force would allow for a brushless homopolar generator does not make sense. That device by definition has electrical contact between a stationary wire and a spinning metal plate. Conductive brushes are just the way that can be done easily. Since the voltage generated is small, it wouldn't be easy to measure without good electrical contact. The flipping of sign of voltage with direction of rotation cannot be explained by the existence of the brushes. The Lorentz force predicts nothing that would easily allow the electrons to easily jump to a contactless probe to complete the circuit if you want the device to actually act as a generator.
So are you willing to learn something about what the Lorentz force actually predicts, or are you going to keep making up false statements about it to support your assertion that every scientist and engineer on the planet has gotten basic physical laws wrong for a over a century, yet modern technology still works?
Here is the field of my magnet:
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/mmk_p01-jpg.186996/
I used 10 turn rectangular coil when testing with wobble...
Maxwell does nothing when it comes to uniform magnetic field and motion of charge particles...
If you want non decaying magnetic gradient then the closest would be Helmholtz coils...
By the way if Lorentz force based EMF was in existence then we would have brush-less Faraday's homo-polar generator working as well...
That is it: you have no understanding of physics involved and you have no ability to construct a setup to prove that Lorentz force on electrons in a segment of wire moving with constant velocity trough uniform constant magnetic field creates EMF as it is pictured by MIT cource-ware 2018 which copy of is published in my paper:
http://www.tyrell-innovations.com/share/OrmanForce.pdf
Until you show an experimental setup of your design or any other one you will be considered by me as a troll and I will not exchange any dialogs with you...
Here is the field of my magnet:
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/mmk_p01-jpg.186996/
I used 10 turn rectangular coil when testing with wobble...
Maxwell does nothing when it comes to uniform magnetic field and motion of charge particles...
If you want non decaying magnetic gradient then the closest would be Helmholtz coils...
By the way if Lorentz force based EMF was in existence then we would have brush-less Faraday's homo-polar generator working as well...Field of magnet looks correct.
Wobble test should get zero EMF for toroid. For your 10 turn coil: Was that perpendicular or horizontal to the magnet? That would make a difference.
I may have stated something a little wrong about non decaying gradient, not quite sure how to express in words. The picture of your magnetic field shows what I was trying to say there, if you draw a circle anywhere on that picture, the total EMF you get for a loop of wire moving in a magnetic field will equal the number of lines that cross the loop going into the loop minus the number of lines leaving the loop.
On the brush-less Faraday's homo-polar generator, I assume that you mean that the loop is not moving with respect to the magnet. No, that won't work.
On the formula itself: What happened to the force due to the E field? That should be part of the force. It looks like you have arrived at some sort of differentiation of Lorentz Formula with respect to time (which would account for the missing E field) So you should be equating that to "change of force with respect to time" and not "force". The formula would make more sense then, but would not be anything new. So I'm OK with this if you call it "Orman's change of force".
Lorentz Force correctly explains force between capacitive plates, and forces that make inductors and transformers work. I'm an electronics guy, so this is what matters to me.
For now, I am going back to using Lorentz Formula, its been working quite nicely for me so far.
You are talking about Laplace force which Lorentz took as his own, that works just fine...
See copy of the MIT cource ware 2018 in my paper: Fig:9 http://www.tyrell-innovations.com/share/OrmanForce.pdf
It is that exact formulae of Lorentz force which has been invalidated...
Also, E field force is covered by Coulombs law and Lorentz had zero contribution to it...
Homopolar DC Brush-less Generator Patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5977684
Which does not work because Lorentz force is invalid...
That is it: you have no understanding of physics involved and you have no ability to construct a setup to prove that Lorentz force on electrons in a segment of wire moving with constant velocity trough uniform constant magnetic field creates EMF as it is pictured by MIT cource-ware 2018 which copy of is published in my paper:
http://www.tyrell-innovations.com/share/OrmanForce.pdf
Until you show an experimental setup of your design or any other one you will be considered by me as a troll and I will not exchange any dialogs with you...You accuse me of not understanding the physics involved without responding to a single technical point I made, or acknowledging that you still have not provided an equation for your so-called force law that even has consistent units.
I have provided you with experimental setups. The textbook chapter you link to in your paper has a variety of experimental setups, none of which match the experiments you reported.
http://web.mit.edu/viz/EM/visualizations/coursenotes/modules/guide10.pdf
The online calculator you link to shows another example, directly related to what you ask for:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/genwir3.html#c1
Just take that setup with 2 bar magnets lined up north to south with a gap. You can hook up a decent voltmeter to either end of the metal wire. Note that the loop formed by the wire and voltmeter will have some additional magnetic field passing through it (additional meaning besides the strongest part of the field which is in the gap between the magnets) so for best results, the leads should be kept away from the strongest part of the field near the magnets, and the leads should be kept as still as possible.