Interesting.  Can you tell us more about your experiments?
Also, you're saying that a static electric field does work, whereas a static magnetic field does not -- right?
Finally, do your results uphold Dr Pappas' claims, or not?
The experiments I referred to had to do with beam deflection on the CRT of an old oscilloscope. I noticed that the permanent magnets used to control centering did no work to center the beam (obviously). On the other hand, the HV plates and display deflection circuitry used a sizable amount of current to draw the trace. I played with homebrew deflection yokes to eliminate the HV circuits and found that the magnetic deflection circuitry used the same amount of power for a given set of patterns whether there was a beam to deflect or not. The HV plate deflection scheme power usage varied with the complexity and duration of the trace. I had enough doubts about the differences to repeat the experiments with NIST calibrated test equipment from work. My results weren't off by much. My conclusion was that magnetic fields do no work on traveling particles even though the particles experience a change in angular momentum. The same change in angular momentum, as a result of traveling through an electrostatic field, uses energy stored in the electrostatic field. It also seems to be possible to change the electrostatic charge level (increase or decrease) by changing the angle of the driven beam WRT the deflection plate field. That was about 20 years ago. Dr. Pappas seems to think the electrostatic fields use no additional energy when they cause deflection. Perhaps, he is correct. All I see is when such claims are made it is usually because 'hidden momentum' isn't understood or considered. When I think I understand it completely I let you all know. Don't hold your breath 
|
feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
Author
Topic: Dr.P.T.Pappas puts up a 100,000.00 Callenge to the sceptics of his OU claim (Read 20006 times)
