Radiation from a charge in circular motion
under construction
modified 9-26-15f

Principles of Electrodynamics, Melvin Schwartz, 1987, p. 222-223:

. . . it is useful to examine in detail the radiation pattern due to a charge moving in a circle, with v << c. In Fig. 6-4 we sketch a coordinate system relative to the center of the circular path taken by the charge.

The charge moves counterclockwise as viewed from the +z direction. As we observe the charge from the various directions, we see the acceleration vector carrying out its periodic motion with the rotational frequency of the particle. From along the +z axis, the acceleration vector always appears to have the same length and rotates about in a  circle. Hence we have circularly polarized light going out along the positive and negative z directions. . . .

In the xy plane the radiation is plane polarized with the electric vector always lying in this plane.

Fig. 6-4  A charged particle moving in a circle gives rise to circularly polarized radiation along the axis of its motion and linearly polarized radiation at right angles to this axis. In other directions the “light” is elliptically polarized.

CircularChargeRadiation.gif (2722 bytes)

Gamma rays can be circularly polarized:





Rotation of an electric charge produces electromagnetic radiation. What would rotation of a magnetic charge produce? Magnetism is dipolar, instead of monopolar like electric charges. Such a charge would have to be "synthetically" or "equivalently" produced. (of course, a dipolar field could be used too) I cannot find any research on this topic (except perhaps for the well-known Halbach Arrays). But there are reports of strange effects from rotating magnets in a specially configured apparatus:

Halbach Arrays

Eccentric rotation of magnet assemblies:
"Towards Effective Spaceflight – some notes and references" (2011) http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2011/12/towards-effective-spaceflight-some-notes-and-references-1491227.html

Antigravity effect:

"Systems for producing gravity neutral regions between magnetic fields, in accordance with ECE-theory", Charles W. Kellum (2012)  http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20120105181.pdf

"Propulsion System Using the Antigravity Force of the Vacuum and Applications", Baptista de Alves Martins (2010)
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/WO2010151161A2.pdf   (119 pages, 22 figures; several  references to magnetic vector potential)

"The Weird Tale of the Man Who Discovered “Gravity Shielding” UFO-like Technologies" Micah Hanks  (April 19, 2016) Article is about Polkletnov, Arago, rotating discs and magnets.  http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2016/04/the-weird-tale-of-the-man-who-discovered-gravity-shielding-ufo-like-technologies/    

"John Brandenburg on Antigravity and Gravity-Control", http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/john-brandenburg-on-antigravity-and-gravity-control.html


Ball bearing motor effect:

Searl Effect:
http://www.searlsolution.com/ (shows animated model of Searl technology)

Faraday induction paradox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_Paradox (see also Feynman's comments below about the Faraday induction paradox )

"Circumventing Magnetostatic Reciprocity: A Diode for Magnetic Fields" J. Prat-Camps, P. Maurer, G. Kirchmair, and O. Romero-Isart
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-defy-19th-century-law-physics.html  Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 213903 – Published 20 November 2018   https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.213903  

Falling Magnet Effect:
"Secret UFO Propulsion Systems", Boyd Bushman

Radiation Reaction

"Radiation reaction is attended by some very thorny problems. I have already alluded to several of them, and Feynman discussed others. Arguably the nastiest problem associated with radiation reaction the problem that is directly related to transient mass fluctuationswas not mentioned by Feynman. It is quite simple. It is known as a matter of fact that electric charges subjected to constant accelerations radiate electromagnetic waves, and the energy they carry away from their source charges is proportional to the square of the charges' acceleration. But when the acceleration of the radiating charges is constant, the time derivative of the acceleration . . . vanishes, and with it the radiation reaction term . . . disappears too. So, our mathematical formalism tells us that during constant accelerations all of the work being done by the accelerating force goes into change of the kinetic energy of the charges. Nonetheless, they radiate energy too. We seem to be faced with an obvious violation of the conservation of energy here.  http://physics.fullerton.edu/~jimw/general/radreact/


" . . . a charged particle held stationary in a gravitational field (and therefore undergoing constant proper acceleration) does not radiate. For example, in Feynman's "Lectures on Gravitation" he says "we have inherited a prejudice that an accelerating charge should radiate", and then he goes on to argue that the usual formula giving the power radiated by an accelerating charge as proportional to the square of the acceleration "has led us astray" because it applies only to cyclic or bounded motions. . . .

Thus the radiation reaction force (and therefore the radiated power) is proportional to the third derivative of position, so if the particle is undergoing constant acceleration it does not radiate (according to this formula). If this is true, why do we so commonly regard radiation as being strictly a function of acceleration? . . .

Despite Feynman's assurances, there is no general agreement in the literature about whether a uniformly accelerated charge radiates (in classical electrodynamics). "  ("Does A Uniformly Accelerating Charge Radiate?" http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath528/kmath528.htm    See also  The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Feynman, et al. (1964) Vol 2, p. 28-7)


Poynting Vector Reversal

"Feynman one remarked . . . that the definition of the Poynting vector leads to paradoxical situations, or seemingly so at least at first sight. To make his point he took the example of a conducting wire in which a constant current circulates, whose Poynting vector is directed towards the inside of the wire . . . . Consequently, a flux of energy radially enters the wire. . . . this incoming energy must equal the energy dissipated as heat in the wire. Thus the energy locally dissipated by the electrons to generate heat, does indeed originate from the ether and flows towards the inside of the wire, without the necessity to consider the introduction of an external source of energy such as a battery. When currents are not constant but rapidly vary as a function of time, the wire radiates away from the inside towards the outside . . . ." (Advanced Electromagnetism and Vacuum Physics, Patrick Cornille (2003) P. 361)


"In bringing together relativity and Maxwell's equations, we have finished our main work on the theory of electromagnetism. . . . this tremendous edifice, which is such a beautiful success in explaining so many phenomena, ultimately falls on its face. . . . Now we want to discuss a serious trouble--the failure of the classical electromagnetic theory. . . . the classical theory of electromagnetism is an unsatisfactory theory all by itself. . . . when electromagnetism is joined to quantum mechanics, the difficulties remain. "  (The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Feynman, et al. (1964) Vol 2, p. 28-1)

Hooper theory

"During the late 60's William J. Hooper put forth an interesting theory involving the v x B terms dynamic electrical circuits. There was and is uncertainty as to the exact physical understanding of the Biot-Savart-Lorentz law and Ampere's law involving the set of reaction forces. Peter Graneau has studied these expressions. Hoopers view was that there are three different types of electric fields due to the distribution of electric field, and two due to induction. At the heart of the issue is the connection of the magnetic field and its source in the charged particles. EM theory is presently consistent with the idea that spinning magnetic dipoles create effects indistinguishable from charged particles. There has been no critical experiment which can disprove whether a magnetic flux rotates with its source. If it does co-move with its source then it is logical to assume that a motional electric field in a fixed reference frame of the current induces a magnetic field. This concept is likewise consistent with a field-free interpretation such as Ampere's original laws. (with 4 pages more about Hooper's theories) " http://www.eskimo.com/~bilb/freenrgl/gravres2.html

Faraday induction paradox:

"So the "flux rule"that the emf in a circuit is equal to the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuitapplies whether the flux changes because the field changes or because the circuit moves (or both). The two possibilities"circuit moves" or "field changes"are not distinguished in the statement of the rule. Yet in our explanation of the rule we have used two completely distinct laws for the two cases v x B for "circuit moves" and del x E = -B/t for "field changes".

We know of no other place in physics where such a simple and accurate general principle requires for its real understanding an analysis in terms of two different phenomena. Usually such a beautiful generalization is found to stem from a single deep underlying principle. Nevertheless, in the case there does not appear to be any such profound implication. We have to understand the "rule" as the combined effects of two quite separate phenomena."— Richard P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. II, pp. 17-2

Note the asymmetry in the behavior. This seems to imply some sort of absolute motion. We probably are indeed missing a "profound implication". See also  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday%27s_law_of_induction ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_Paradox    ;  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZeCIejT2NY  

More about the implications for absolute motion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_Paradox (concerning a rotating disk, magnets, and currents generated, or not )

The experiment proceeds in three steps:

  1. The magnet is held to prevent it from rotating, while the disc is spun on its axis. The result is that the galvanometer registers a direct current. The apparatus therefore acts as a generator, variously called the Faraday generator, the Faraday disc, or the homopolar (or unipolar) generator.
  2. The disc is held stationary while the magnet is spun on its axis. The result is that the galvanometer registers no current.
  3. The disc and magnet are spun together. The galvanometer registers a current, as it did in step 1.
Compare the behaviors in the Faraday paradox with the one often done in physics classes:
1. A small bar magnet is dropped down a plastic tube. Speed of fall is noted.
2. The same bar magnet is dropped down a copper tube.. Speed of fall is noted.

The magnet falls much more slowly in the copper tube.  Is this consistent with result #2 of the Faraday paradox? What is happening to the magnetic flux?

http://www.esotericscience.com/Magnetism.aspx (concerning Marinov experiment: electric charges on a rotating disk and a B field detector nearby):

The Marinov experiment:
(a) detector is stationary and disk spins,
(b) detector rotates  and disk is stationary,
(c) detector and disk spin together.

Standard Theory
(a) There is relative movement between the detector and the charges so we expect a B field.
     This agrees with observation.
(b) There is relative movement between the detector and the charges so we expect a B field.
     This does not agree with observation.
(c) The detector is completely stationary relative to the charges so we would not expect a B
     field to be registered.
     This does not agree with observation.

Aether Model
(a) Charges move relative to the aether so we would expect a B field.
     This agrees with observation.
(b) Charges do not move relative to the aether so we would not expect a B field.
     This agrees with observation.
(c) Charges move relative to the aether so we would expect a B field even though there is no
     movement of the detector relative to the charges.
     This agrees with observation.

"As we can see the results are in disagreement with standard theory but are completely consistent with the aether model."


Scriptural Physics note:

"The first time derivative, d (t/s3)/dt,  is equivalent to 1/s3   which could be power/area . Neither of these alternatives seems to suggest a gravitational effect. However, power/area is the same dimension as the Poynting vector, which apparently has something to do with "ether power flow" (for lack of better words) and hence, gravitation. A spatially accelerated B field also has these dimensions:  B=t2/s4 as above, and a = s/t2 and so (B)(a) = (t2/s4)  (s/t2) which comes out to 1/s3 or power/area; however, this might require a homopolar configuration. What really seems to matter in all this is, not just power flow, but momentum  density."

See note about:

pulsed E field and accelerated B field.
symmetry problem
StrangeFlying Machines


"HERTZIAN ELECTRODYNAMICS (Correction of Maxwell's equations)"


Inventions with weird magnetic configurations

Hans Coler Converter

coler_fig2.jpg (19760 bytes)




"Coler Magnetstromapparat",  Rob Arndt http://discaircraft.greyfalcon.us/Coler%20Magnetstromapparat.htm

"The Devices of Hans Coler"  http://www.free-energy-info.com/Chapter9.pdf    


"Researchers capture an image of negative capacitance in action",  January 21, 2019 by Linda Vu, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory  
  https://phys.org/news/2019-01-capture-image-negative-capacitance-action.html    (Note the use of ferroelectrics in this phenomenon of negative capacitance.  Could permanent magnets similarly be used in a negative inductance scheme?


Scalar beam device

http://www.mbutler.org/psionics/Scalar-Beam-Device.htm  (concerning a wire coil with pulsed current wound around two rectangular magnets in "bucking field" configuration; Note: the "science of scalar magnetics" (for lack of a better term) has a really bad reputation for reproducibility, or even just plain meaningful results. )

Possibly relevant:

 Motion Cancellers .

Physics, Halliday, Resnick and Krane, 5th ed.(2002) p. 785:

"There is another difference between the two kinds of electric fields:  electric  fields produced by charges can be represented by a potential, but potential has no meaning for electric fields produced by a changing magnetic flux. . . . The induced electric filed due to a changing magnetic field is nonconservative and cannot be represented by a potential. (The magnetic field due to a current is also nonconservative. The lines of magnetic field form closed loops, and the magnetic field also cannot be described by a potential.)"

See reference to "neutrino current" and Weyl fermions at   ../ADVPROP.html#UFOPhysics    The comments there may give some insights on the strange magnetic configuration of the Hans Coler Converter


Kaluza–Klein theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory

Tensors for Circuits, Gabriel Kron (1959) http://archive.org/details/TensorsForCircuits (Kron-TensorsForCircuits_text[1].pdf )

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6548752.pdf    ????\

Return to Scriptural Physics Home Page