Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world

[pmgr]

katsaps also live in the USA, but I agree we will not specify a dude without a name, who distorts other people's names.
Newton's first law is secondary in its ontogeny to Coulomb's law. Just look at the formulas.
In general, all gravity is the attraction of charged bodies.
The second physics considers Amperes to be the movement of electrically charged particles, which in fact is a gross mistake.
only a vortex electric field moves around the conductor. This is the parameter of electric charge change as a result of permeability. The current strength is a parameter of "conditional" resistance to a change in the electrical parameter, it has a vortex magnetic structure.
The vortex magnetic field and the vortex electric field are like twin brothers, but they have differences. The electric field along the conductor is a conical spiral from a higher potential to a lower one. A vortex magnetic field will always have equal potentials at the ends. This is a property of magnetic flux. The current strength is also the same in all parts of the circuit.

Rakker, you can say all that above and with some things I agree (e.g. gravity force is very similar to electric charge force), but you still haven't addressed the fact that your units in your table are inconsistent as I have shown above. Your table needs corrections. It is not correct from a unit standpoint. And if you think it is, please list what units you use as standard units (e.g. V, A, m, s) and how other derived units are related to it (e.g. Coulomb and Weber).


If you can't do that, you lack the basic understanding that when writing down an equation, the units need to match on both sides of the equal sign.

[rakarskiy]

I don't think anything to fix. Modern science is repelled in measurements, from the unit of electric charge (Coulomb).
That is: 1 Coulomb is the amount of charge that has passed through the cross section of the conductor, at a current strength of 1 A in a time of 1 s,
or current strength 1A = 1 Coulomb for 1 s.
I also associate the pendant with the volt:
By definition, the difference in electric potential between two points is equal to 1 volt if, to move a charge of 1 pendant from one point to another, work of 1 joule must be done on it. A volt is also equal to an electrical voltage that induces a direct current of 1 ampere at a power of 1 watt in an electrical circuit.
Now next:
By definition, a change in magnetic flux through a closed circuit at a rate of one Weber per second induces an EMF in this circuit equal to one volt.
All this is a vicious circle, logical chains, with science determining that Ampere is a unit of measurement for the strength of an electric current.
How does this same Current Force manifest itself in reality?
It manifests itself in the action of electromagnetic induction in a closed circuit.
The fact that the orthodox all agreed to consider this phenomenon as the movement of electrically charged particles is not confirmed in any way.
The current strength is directly related to the vortex magnetic field around the conductor.
From here we conclude that the current strength in the electrical system and the eddy magnetic field around the conductor are one and the same phenomenon, only in different measurement systems.
The movement is carried out by an electric field between potentials, and a magnetic vortex field (current strength) is a consequence with a different spin vector.

E  - is the electric field strength (in SI units - V/m);
D  - electrical induction (in SI units - C / m²);

H  - is the magnetic field strength (in SI units - A/m);
B  - magnetic induction (in SI units - T = Wb / m² = kg•s⁻²•A⁻¹);

[bistander]

Rakker, you can say all that above and with some things I agree (e.g. gravity force is very similar to electric charge force), but you still haven't addressed the fact that your units in your table are inconsistent as I have shown above. Your table needs corrections. It is not correct from a unit standpoint. And if you think it is, please list what units you use as standard units (e.g. V, A, m, s) and how other derived units are related to it (e.g. Coulomb and Weber).


If you can't do that, you lack the basic understanding that when writing down an equation, the units need to match on both sides of the equal sign.

pmgr,

I agree with you.
Rak's problems:
He confuses the variables with the units of measure. This leads to circular reasoning and flawed logic.
Magnetic flux (or the magnetic field) is not a vortex, as he claims.
He speaks of "strength" of current. Nonsensical. Current is a rate. Like velocity. Like saying strength of speed.
He does not comprehend basic physics and refuses to recognize proven universally accepted fundamental concepts and definitions.
I see no point to him.
bi

[rakarskiy]

Your problem is stereotypes. I have a consideration of action in an electrical circuit. Current strength, a very controversial concept in physics, what does this phenomenon refer to? The concept of ordered charges? what charges? and why the only manifestation is a vortex magnetic field?
You are attached to Newton's law as the root cause, but progressive thinking physicists themselves put it on the third. The first is Coulomb's law. If we were attentive, we could find an interesting gradation in my materials that I post here.
I got the impression that such an opus about moving charges was introduced intentionally.

PS: my view of the problem only clarifies what is blurry. Namely, in the action of electromagnetic induction. The main thing is that everything corresponds to Ohm's law, where voltage and current are different elements.

[kolbacict]

I got the impression that such an opus about moving charges was introduced intentionally.

I remember something about how we were told at school about an old experiment.
How a  bay with a wire was untwisting, and abruptly stopped.
At the same time, voltage was fixed at the ends of the coil.
From which they concluded that the free electrons in the metal moved by inertia.