New Test of J.Nordberg's 'Field Reversing Sphere' Experiment

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Q-reeus, Apr 2, 2013.

  1. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    I mean less at the equator because the compass is physically further from the center.
    Ah, this is true, the outcomes you and I were advocating didn't really cover all possible outcomes. I'll test whether the deflection differs between the wire and the sphere at a constant distance from the center. I'll even stack all 5 vertically and mount them somehow so Tach will be satisfied...
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    OK. Just remember that strictly speaking an 1/r dependence on |B| holds only for an 'infinitely long' straight wire. In practice this will be closely approximated if straight wire section is considerably longer than axial range of measurements - center of axial range obviously coinciding with diameter plane of sphere. And that rest of loop is reasonably symmetrical wrt straight wire part, and radially distant from straight part as far as permitted. Which is just common sense.
    [I will add that above precautions relating to rest of loop can be dropped if one merely compares readings with straight wire vs sphere, rest of loop remaining same in form each case.]
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    "Further from the center" of what? The compass needs to be moved parallel to the vertical wire. You seem not to understand the basics of the experiment, neither the theoretical ones (explained by Q-reeus), nor the practical one (explained by me).

    It is not an issue of satisfying me, it is an issue of doing the experiment right. If you were to confront Nordberg with what you have now, he would laugh in your face.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    Tach, you are lost. Do you not find it curious that all of the people around you seem to be able to exchange information in a seamless manner?
     
  8. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    I am not lost, I am amused by your inability to comprehend simple concepts while pretending all along that you do.
     
  9. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Agreed he would have some wriggle room, but not enough to explain that clearly there was no field reversal going on as claimed. But I want to have this be a clear experimental confirmation of the power of applying Ampere's circuital law, and that means confirmation spherical shape per se has no effect to alter form of B field whatsoever - strength or shape - from straight wire case.
     
  10. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Agreed. The way RJB's "experiment" stands at the moment, aside from not exhibiting the reversal about the equator plane, is a disaster. Nordberg, if confronted, would laugh in his face. We both spent a lot of time explaining how to set up the experiment. Yet, it ended up being very shoddy.
     
  11. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    I think RJB would have to accept it could have been done somewhat better for sure. So let's look forward to a much improved Mark 2 YouTube vid soon!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    And here is how I propose to do this: attach all 5 compasses, stacked vertically, separated by an inch or two, to the strut; then I test for similar/identical deflection on each compass regardless of its proximity to the sphere. I can then replace the wire/sphere combo with a straight-thru wire of the same gauge and repeat the experiment.

    I'm willing to do all of this for the sake of being thorough but what I was testing for myself has already been verified (well, actually, disproven). If Nordberg's claims were true then I would have expected the compass to deflect in the opposite direction on the bottom half of the sphere; all of this talk about degree of deflection is secondary to me. Additionally, I don't understand how Nordberg could defend his stance given my (admittedly casual) first attempt.
     
  13. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Yes, this is much better, it is exactly what I explained to you sometime ago.
     
  14. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    I concur with Tach's approval in #290. Yes it is more work, but what price peace of mind?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Likely by now Nordberg will be following all this, and one can expect extreme uncontactability from said inventor/genius henceforth.:splat:
     
  15. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,875
    Hmm, from his video it does seem like there's no field reversal.

    Would Nordberg blame it on his compass being too close to the straight wire?

    But I doubt that Nordberg will laugh in his face. In fact he may be the one laughing in Nordberg's face.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Pardon me good sir, do you have the math that shows that there's no difference between sphere and wire?
     
  16. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,875
    Whenever you do something, always imagine a scary headmistress peering over your shoulder.

    Then everything you do will be "right".

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,430
    Nice job, RJBeery! So, it looks like the laws of physics are intact, and Nordberg was just blowing smoke up our bums.
     
  18. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    What does it matter what Nordberg would argue? He's a fraud who likely knows his game is up and the last thing he will be doing now is arguing with anyone - except maybe creditors. Silence is now golden rule for Mr.N.
    I doubt either are in the laughing mood. :bawl:
    You also have forgotten how many times I have been virtually shouting that Ampere's law demands it. Just check back through my earlier posts, this thread and the earlier one.
     
  19. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    My bum's smoke free pal - maybe you meant smoke in our eyes. More likely Nordberg has been smoking into his lungs something illicit.
     
  20. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,875
    I know, but I haven't really seen the math.
     
  21. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,875
    :m::m::m:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Weed solves all your problems.
     
  22. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Well I did explain it. You have to apply the law to a specific case and see what is predicted, or rather what limitations it imposes. Here, I checked out a few online articles and this one about does it well enough:
    www.sweethaven02.com/Science/PhysicsCalc/Ch0235.pdf
    Now read through and just apply the principles explained there to Nordberg's claimed field configs. No further spoon feeding from me this time.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,605
    Sure hope THAT one was in jest!
     

Share This Page