by small_steps » Fri 09 Jun 2006, 01:52:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', '
')I'm healthily sceptical, but I've read his paper and I understand much of his thesis, particularly regarding experiments involving the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect.
In the AB effect, electrons fired passed a solenoid (magnet) get deflected, even though the electrons themselves do not pass through the magnetic 'B' field of the magnet. This suggests the presence of another magnetic field which appears to be generated via gauge freedom in the region surrounding the solenoid, even though the solenoid's B-field magnetic field is only located within the solenoid's shaft.
By 'gauge freedom', I mean a quantum effect that's strange, because it's produced by the requirement that the waves associated with the electrons in QM must be phase-indepdendent - i.e. if you vary the electron's wavefunction (a mathematical gimmick that works to explain particle behaviour in QM but has no particular physical interpretation in itself), you mathematically get the result that there should be another magnetic field outside of the solenoid. <i>No extra work is done to obtain this 'outside' magnetic field</i>.
By varying the strength of this further magnetic field, you create an <i>electric</i> field, which can be used to generate a voltage, and hence current.
If there is current around that solenoid, there will be flux distributed around it, not just inside the solenoid. Any introductory electromagnetics text should make this clear. So an electron will interact with the energized solenoid (or magnet), sounds a bit like lorentz force to me.
And yes, if we vary the magnetic field (flux) we will induce an electric potential, which could be used to do work, but it could also induced in a bulk material, which it would be called an eddy current.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', '
')Also, note that the MEG is already a device that uses Fermi's law E = -dA/dt to produce an E-field from this A magnetic vector potential. The technology part isn't that complicated, it appears that the main problem is stablising the field in order to produce a consistent E-field.
Let's remember what the units of A are: [Wb/m]. So if we have gone through the work of determining A from the rest of the fields or sources, performing a line integral to determine the flux linked by two points in space will be fairly simple. Not surprisingly, if we vary the amount of magnetic flux between these two arbitrary points, we will observe an electric potential. (I think what you wrote as Fermi's Law should actually be Faraday's Law) So to obtain a constant electric potential between those two points, we need a linearly increasing (or decreasing) amount of flux linking those two points, which could be done with linearly increasing amounts of current. It should be obvious to the most casual observer that this is no where near a trivial feat.
I realize I know very little about quantum mechanics, but this appears to be a misunderstanding of classical electrodymanics. Not that this classical electrodymanic theory does not explain whatever bearden is trying to sell, but that the people who are trying to sell bearden theories do even know what is classical EM and how classical EM fails at explaining what looks like a filter inductor in a voltage source inverter (that is what bearden is trying to sell isn't it?).