Author Topic: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432  (Read 30024 times)

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Liked: 1674
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #40 on: 07/09/2018 10:44 PM »
First of all, you are the one who said "I will not give you any information." Are you taking that back, or just wasting time?

@meberbs

I gave you the information but you answered me as a mathematician and not as a physicist
No, I told you that Miller doesn't know what he is talking about. I have given you multiple examples of experiments that provide evidence that fields exist exactly as described by Maxwell's equations. You have ignored these, and Miller appears to be unaware of these. He also ignores that the equations he cites for the fields directly as a function of the charge motions make the exact same prediction as Maxwell's equations. When he claims the fields don't exist, he is simply contradicting himself.

I gave you the information but  you answered me as a mathematician and not as a physicist
Mr. 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
The problem is that Miller, and presumably the designers of those antennas didn't understand how Maxwell's equations work, not that there is anything wrong with Maxwell's equations. See here for something I quickly was able to find listing some mistakes by the people who did those antennas.

More you do not even think that Nobel Lorentz had any reason to Maxwell about DC
Since the believers in Maxwell are so many because you do not make a  collection of money to build a nice displacement  current antenna ?   :)
The concept of a special "displacement current" antenna does not even make sense. Displacement current refers to rate of change of electric field. To have a changing electric field, you need to have charges moving around. This is something that happens in every antenna ever built. Without accelerating charges, you don't have radiation. With accelerating charges you have radiation, and Maxwell's equations are a relatively simple way to describe this radiation.

So put some money in the faith in Maxwell that you have
I use the results of Maxwell's equations in my day job. Your use of the word "faith" is insulting. I have no "faith" in Maxwell. I have seen results indicating that Maxwell's equations work under every relevant condition.

You are the one being unscientific here, you are not providing actual experimental results, and ignoring the results of experiments I have listed. You also are not providing any alternative theory that can explain experimental results, are ignoring the definition of words, and are ignoring the fact that various equations are equivalent to or derived from each other.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #41 on: 07/10/2018 12:49 AM »
@meberbs

if you make a research you will find many authors that doubt of Maxwell equations

for example from:
http://lefteris-kaliambos.wikia.com/wiki/ERRORS_IN_MAXWELL%27S_EQUATIONS

………The second postulation of Maxwell was his hypothesis that a changing electric field between the plates of a capacitor produces a hypothetical electric current (called displacement current) able to give a magnetic force. However the experiment of French and Tessman in 1963 showed that changing electric fields between the plates of a capacitor cannot give magnetic forces. On the other hand  in case in which the displacement current (Id) is correct one can prove that such a current violates the Ampere law…..

Or  George Galeczki in http://www.asps.it/beyond.htm

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.


Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Liked: 1674
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #42 on: 07/10/2018 02:54 AM »
@meberbs

if you make a research you will find many authors that doubt of Maxwell equations
They are known as "crackpots." With 7 billion people in the world, it is not surprising that some of them go around writing nonsense. They may just not understand what they are talking about, or they could be making stuff up in some misguided bid for attention.

Here is one list of ways to recognize them: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
(While you are looking at the list, you can check how your posts in this thread score.)

The ignorance of your source is obvious from multiple things in the quote you used:
"a hypothetical electric current (called displacement current)"This simply is not the definition of displacement current. It is not a physical electric current as I have said multiple times.

"On the other hand  in case in which the displacement current (Id) is correct one can prove that such a current violates the Ampere law….."
This statement is trivially backwards. Using the integral form of Ampere's Law, we can consider the textbook case of a charging capacitor. You can pick an Amperian loop around the wire some distance from the capacitor, which clearly yields a non zero magnetic field integral. On the other hand, the surface you pick has no restrictions on it, so you pick one that moves parallel to the wire for a while and then connects through the gap in the capacitor. The surface never intersects the wire, so there is no current moving through it.

This clearly indicates that Ampere's law cannot hold in general. It turns out that the extra term Maxwell added does create a comparable law that works in all known situations. This is the exact opposite of what that author claimed.

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.
There are not assumptions backing what I am saying, and at least among people who actually know anything about electrodynamics, nothing I am say is disputed. I am making statements that are based on experimental observations, definitions of terms, or otherwise direct conclusions from pure math or logic, such as showing the inherent contradictions in the quote you provided.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #43 on: 07/10/2018 05:02 PM »


@meberbs

In   http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.6223&rep=rep1&type=pdf
We read:
“In 1901 Poincaré found another weakness in displacement current theory. He showed
that when the displacement current is acted on by a magnetic field it ‘does not experience
any mechanical action according to the theory of Lorentz’….”

However, the real problem is that trying to find the magnetic field of DC was in practice the salvation for the invention of Maxwell called precisely DC since the magnetic fields that as a false procedure can be attributed to DC save precisely the invention of Maxwell of the DC.
In reality, as Poincarè wanted, we need to look for the true and unequivocal clue: the Lorentz force that the magnetic field from DC generates in the presence of a current.

Now Poincare says that there is no mechanical action according to the theory of Lorentz ', Miller that you degrades to incompetent says that no one has found the magnetic field from DC between the plates of a capacitor. 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 in
http://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 Nobel
https://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. ...

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Liked: 1674
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #44 on: 07/10/2018 06:08 PM »
In   http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.205.6223&rep=rep1&type=pdf
We read:
“In 1901 Poincaré found another weakness in displacement current theory. He showed
that when the displacement current is acted on by a magnetic field it ‘does not experience
any mechanical action according to the theory of Lorentz’….”
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.

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/
Is condenser a mistranslation of capacitor? Anyway, you show field directions generally consistent with Maxwell's equations, and do not show an apparatus that could measure the magnetic force you are simply ignoring the forces on the plates, as well as fact that the central plate can't have the charge on it changing unless there is somewhere for the charge to go.

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!

Here is one example:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0143-0807/36/5/055048

You previously cited this one:
https://deanostoybox.com/hot-streamer/TeslaCoils/OtherPapers/displacement_current-Bartlett.pdf
"That measurement confirmed the classical prediction that there is an azimuthal B field that increases linearly with distance from the axis."

There is also this one:
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1119/1.1987657
That one is actually cited by Roche in the paper you have mentioned a few times, though Roche uses a selective quote to try and present EM radiation arguments as "not good enough," while leaving out the part that clarifies Carver is only saying that a more direct measurement is helpful for intuition, and goes on to describe more direct measurements.

Not hard to look up these and other related experiments, claiming that they don't exist is not a sign of competence. Making claims contrary to these results is in fact an indication of being a crackpot.

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 in
http://www.calmagorod.org/ could lead to a propellantless propulsion from Maxwell DC.
No, Maxwell's equations prohibit "propellantless thrust" other than the special case of a photon rocket

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.
No, I provided you with a variety of experiments that you are ignoring. The mathematics is to show that the field is real no matter how you calculate it. (Jefimenko's equations were actually brought up as evidence against the field existing by Miller despite the fact that they show it is real if he did the math10.)

And look what we read that we read in honor of Lorentz for the award of the Nobel
https://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. ...
That is talking about the discrete nature of charges, which is handled by Maxwell's equations just fine, even if he didn't know they exist. The discovery of discrete charges is important of course. When you get to really detailed quantum calculations, then you really need to apply quantum mechanics as well, but that is another story.

Please try actually responding to anything I have written, or at least acknowledging the definition of displacement current.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #45 on: 07/10/2018 07:38 PM »

@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 rocket

photonic propulsion is for incompetent.


Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Liked: 1674
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #46 on: 07/10/2018 09:56 PM »

@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
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. There is no "fields of another nature." You are the one trying to run away from the experimental data I gave you with meaningless philosophy. The changing electric fields are generated by changing charge distributions. Whether you say the magnetic fields are directly caused by the charges, or take the extra step and say the charges cause changing electric fields which in turn cause magnetic fields, there is no difference. The only thing that matters is that the fields exist.

If you only care about physical observables as you claim, then you should have no complaint about the experiments, all physical observables are accounted for. 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. The first link I provided used phase sensitive measurements and found agreement with the theory.

>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
Same difference Maxwell's equations are effectively the definition of classical electrodynamics.

The prohibition of propellantless thrust is a mathematical fact. If you claim otherwise, you either did something wrong, or are not using classical electrodynamics (which basically means you did something wrong.)

>other than the special case of a photon rocket

photonic propulsion is for incompetent.
Radiation pressure has been measured accurately and repeatedly. Anything beyond that, has not.

P.S. Try using quote tags. Click the "quote" button on my post and you can see how it is done.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #47 on: 07/11/2018 06:41 AM »
@meberbs


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




Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Liked: 1674
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #48 on: 07/11/2018 01:27 PM »
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  :)
You are just ignoring the experiments that I linked showing that you can measure the fields, and it works perfectly. Calling it "psychic disturbance" is pointless name calling, presumably to distract from your lack of an argument.

There is no arguing about it eternally if you insist on ignoring the results of experiments, there is just you being in denial.

2) Even without Mr. Maxwell we would have developed electromagnetism
Yes, eventually someone else would have come up with the same equations. So what?

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
By "differently used" you mean "wrong." Math and classical electrodynamics are both self-consistent, there is no such thing as an alternate way to use them that gets a different result. I already pointed out trivial errors in the one setup you referenced with such a claim. If you don't want to (or supposedly "can't") share the details, there is no point in you making the claim. Come back to it if you can ever share, and I will point out your mistakes.

>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
What additional mystery? The experiments measure the magnetic field, so it is present and generating forces, or it couldn't be measured. The way you measure any field is by the forces it generates. If you are referring to your failed experiment, I already gave you the answer. You calculated the force of the plates on the wires, ignoring that the currents in the wires also generate fields, and those fields apply forces to the charges moving in the plates.

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 811
  • Liked: 280
  • Likes Given: 181
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #49 on: 07/11/2018 02:39 PM »
... 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...

Well, it's not a factual counterargument of any sort, but the statement "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" works very well as a koan...



Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #50 on: 07/11/2018 05:07 PM »
@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.

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Liked: 1674
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #51 on: 07/11/2018 06:23 PM »
@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.
-Your statement is based on the assumption that you can't possibly be making a mistake
-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.)

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.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #52 on: 07/11/2018 09:53 PM »
@meberbs

>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 mistake

As 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



Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Liked: 1674
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #53 on: 07/11/2018 10:53 PM »
>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
Preserving momentum and the principle of action and reaction are the same thing. Your statement is self-contradictory.

Electrodynamics involves the fact that fields (photons) have energy and momentum themselves, and people like you who ignore this fact and come to incorrect conclusions. Go get a textbook and read it for the details (for example Griffiths' Electrodynamics book.


>-Your statement is based on the assumption that you can't possibly be making a mistake

As 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
Electrodynamics inherently has special relativity baked into it. In special relativity, p = m*v is no longer accurate, (diverging at speeds approaching c), but this does not break conservation of momentum, does not break the principle of equal and opposite reactions, and does not match any of your claims.

>-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 didn't avoid answering anything, I answered it in detail, in fact I repeated myself with slightly different phrasing to make sure you understood that the fields were in fact generating forces, or they wouldn't have been measured.

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.
You are simply denying the results of experiment. The field exists If you don't like reality, and prefer to live in a fantasy world, keep it to yourself. Please stop insulting people like Poincare and Lorentz by misrepresenting things they have said. Quotes from them before experimental data disproved the existence of the aether are irrelevant, since everyone misunderstood the nature of electromagnetism back then. They figured it out eventually though. Miller is just some random guy that I have already demonstrated is ignorant, so please stop wasting your time referencing him.


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.
You can't measure the existence of a field without measuring some kind of force generated by that field. Your statement about what happens if you don't measure it is metaphysical, since that doesn't matter. The fact is that it never matters where you describe the field as coming from, every way you cut it, the same physical predictions are made.

>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
You already have contradicted yourself, multiple times in just this post. I am not telling you anything other than results originally derived by people way smarter than me. How about you take some of your own advice, develop some prudence, and stop trying to deny reality.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #54 on: 07/16/2018 01:04 PM »
@ meberbs

Good 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 say
On 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

The existence of the magnetic field H by DC (Displacement Current) implies that through the E / H = 377 ohm we can measure with new and unfortunately expensive field sensors both E (electric field) and H (magnetic field)

Placing us at a distance due (let's say 50 of wavelengths) from a dipole emitting frequency field equal to 144 Mhz

If we use the electric Probe EF 1891 (frequency range 100khz-6Ghz) page 70   of the link
http://www.narda-sts.us/pdf_files/DataSheets/NBM-Probes_DataSheet.pdf
  we can measure the electric field E at 144 Mhz.
The probe EF 1891 has a range from .8 to 1000 Volts/meter

The Narda electric probe could well detect 30 Volts / meter (appropriately calibrating the power of the dipole emission)
Now as you can read at page 70 of http://www.narda-sts.us/pdf_files/DataSheets/NBM-Probes_DataSheet.pdf

The magnetic probe HF 0191 (frequency range 27 Mhz - 1 Ghz) has a range from .026 to 16 amp/meter

So if placed the magnetic probe close to the electric one, always at the same distance, has the deadly ability to well detect the .079 Amp / meter that through the relationship E / H give the fatal 377 ohm.

Several parameters of the experimental setup can be varied as distance of the probes and power of the emitting dipole to eventually reach the inevitable consequence that the vacuum impedance is 377 ohms as Maxwell says.

Notes that when I had the money to buy everything I need for this experimental setup I will buy everything for such a check.

Also because I have lost all hope that others can make this verification.
In fact, it is about 3 years that I try in vain to make the believers in Maxwell such an experiment that, as I said, unfortunately it costs.

These are the costs for the electric field probe for example.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Narda-NBM-550-Field-Meter-with-EF-1891-Probe-3-MHz-18-GHz/372358767493?epid=746838883&hash=item56b24fe385:g:KCwAAOSw3FBbFb0Y

Regards

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Liked: 1674
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #55 on: 07/16/2018 02:57 PM »
@ meberbs

Good 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 say
On 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
You are right that with modern technology there is no reason to be arguing this, which is why no one argues it. If you wish to ignore all of the experiments that others have done, you are free to waste your time any money doing your own experiment.

Some things for you to consider:
-The Narda probes are just antennas hooked to sensors that basically act as power meters
-E-field probes are a set of 3 (electric) dipole antennas
-H-fields probes are a set of 3 coil (magnetic dipole) antennas
-Antennas of either of these general types are used all over the place (though usually not in groups of 3) and would not work at all if there was any question about the results of your proposed experiment.
-The Narda probes are calibrated, which is almost certainly done by running a similar test to what you propose. You can contact them and ask about their calibration procedures if you want.
-These probes are regularly used to check power levels of RF radiation, generally for safety reasons, since a sufficiently high power transmitter could cook people like a microwave.

If you insist you want to see the results yourself anyway, some notes:
-50 wavelengths at 144 MHz is about 100 m. At that distance you would need about a 300 W dipole transmitter to just reach 1 V/m, towards the low end of what most of those probes can detect. You could use use a directional antenna to cut down on the overall power needed.
-There are safety and regulatory concerns when you get to these power levels.
-You can probably rent most of the equipment for much cheaper than buying it.

In summary, you have not provided any explanation of why you running that experiment would be different than the many other experiments that show the magnetic field exists, nor have you recognized that the simple fact that those probes exist and are calibrated means that an equivalent experiment to what you are proposing has already been done many times. You can still go run the experiment yourself if you want though.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #56 on: 07/19/2018 10:13 PM »
@meberbs

Calibration of Narda probes with the impedance of the vacuum no one speaks.
I asked the Narda both European and American and no one answered me.
I also asked in two NG rec.radio.amateur.antenna and sci.physics.electromag but nobody , at now, identically knows the procedure to which you mentions.
I have found this but the calibration seems to have nothing to do with the impedance of the vacuum.

Calibration Procedures
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. If the probe were perfectly flat, it would then produce an output that reads 1.0 mW/cm2 at every frequency. In practice, the probes are not perfect and some error is expected. If the probe indicates 1.1 mW/cm2, a calibration factor of 0.91 would be marked on the handle. Multiplying the calibration factor times the indicated rating provides the true value (0.91 x 1.1 +0.999). The actual procedure is to calibrate at every frequency and then to set the gain of the amplifier to center the frequency response for “best fit”.
Probes that are obviously damaged will not zero properly. Occasionally, a probe will appear to function properly but cannot be calibrated successfully. This can occur when some form of internal damage or malfunction in the RF sensor results in certain frequencies not being measured accurately. This problem necessitates some type of repair of the sensor. It is for this reason that, occasionally, a probe that appears to require calibration only, will require minor repairs (see REPAIR CATEGORIES).
Personal monitors and area monitors are calibrated in a similar manner to probes. Since there is no readout, except NS3 monitors, they are normally calibrated at a limited number of frequencies.
from : http://www.narda-sts.us/support_main.php

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.

Greetings



Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Liked: 1674
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #57 on: 07/19/2018 11:20 PM »
I have found this but the calibration seems to have nothing to do with the impedance of the vacuum.
The procedure you list below has exactly as much to do with impedance of free space as the experiment you discussed. In fact it is exactly the experiment you discussed. The procedure you describe lists power in mW/cm^2 while the sensors give readouts in V/m. Guess how you convert between electric field and power per area:
https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/unitconversion.asp

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.
Summary: There are 2 pieces to the meter, the RF sensor that converts the incoming energy to some fixed voltage, and a voltmeter. They calibrate them separately for convenience. What matters is the calibration of the RF sensor portion.

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.
They put each meter in a fixed power field at various frequencies. The free field type of measurement is exactly what you were proposing as your experiment. They would use this equivalent procedure for either E or H field measurements, it is just the inverse conversion factor to get the H-field from power per area. The fact they are able to do so shows that the fields exist. The magnitudes of the fields are what is predicted (As the given example shows, to within about 10%, which is expected since it is easier to do the calibration than repeatedly build ideal probes.)

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.
You just provided all the evidence needed to support my claims. All your experiment would do is partially verify the quality of their calibration at the frequency of your choice.

There is no centuries old question. The question has been closed for a long time.

Offline E.Laureti

  • Member
  • Posts: 85
  • Roma - Italia
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #58 on: 07/20/2018 05:22 AM »

@meberbs

no one has told me what you say and I do not see any problem to make a further direct and clear verification of the measurement of the vacuum impedance

Offline meberbs

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1821
  • Liked: 1674
  • Likes Given: 400
Re: An update about PNN: prototypes F449 and F432
« Reply #59 on: 07/20/2018 06:18 AM »
no one has told me what you say
I am not sure what this part of your statement is supposed to mean. Are you trying to deny some specific statement I made?

There is obviously no problem with you doing the measurements yourself (assuming you get a powerful enough transmitter for your measurement distance and there are no regulatory issues with transmitting sufficiently high power RF in your chosen frequency band.). The question is why you want to spend significant money to repeat an experiment that has been done many times.

What you don't seem to understand is one simple statement:
The calibration procedures you described are exactly the same as the experiment you are going to run; using those meters to measure the field of a fixed power RF signal.

The only difference is that they look at the absolute strength for each probe type individually, whereas you only would pay attention to the ratio of the 2 field outputs. Obviously if the absolute value of both field strengths is correct, than the ratio also is correct.

Tags: