The thorny way of truth - Free Energy Community

- 114 -MARINOVS COMMENTS ON THE PREVIOUS PAPER BY D. E. SPENCER (et al.)I published in TWT-IV (p. 200) a paper of Prof. Spencer on the force between movingcharges, noting in my comnents that I consider her approach as scientifically unsound.I sustain further this opinion.The force with which one moving charge acts on another moving charge (as a matter offact the potential energy of two moving charges) is the basis on which the whole bodyof electromagnetism is to be built. Thus proceeding from the potential energy of two electricalcharges q^, q^ "wving with velocities v,, v^ in absolute space, one has to explainall electromagnetic phenomena. The proponents of Weberian electromagnetism and of theAmpere formula for the force of interaction between two moving charges often forget thatthey have to explain a tremendously big amount of electromagnetic effects which, for thetime being, are explained only proceeding from the well-known Newton-Lorentz equation(i.e., from the Neumann form for the magnetic energy of two moving charges) and consequentlyfrom the Grassmann formula for the force of interaction acting between two movingcharges, as the latter is a direct result of the Newton-Lorentz equation.In addition to the effects known to today's physics, one has to explain also the effectsdemonstrated by the machines constructed recently by me which violate Newton'sthird law (the Bul-Cub machine without stator and the Rotating Ampere Bridge with DisplacementCurrent, presented in TWT-III and TWT-IV). It is well known that Grassmann's formulaviolates Newton's third law but before me none (with the exception of Graham andLahoz, Nature, 285, 154, 1980, who have not understood the importance of their experiment)has observed such violations. Strangely enough, nobody of the proponents of Ampere's formulahas comnented on my experiments. I understand all these people, as my experimentsoffer a direct experimental disproof of Ampere's formula and a firm experimental verificationof Grassmann's formula. Concerning my friends from the "Amperian camp" (all ofwhom have read or at least purchased TWT) I can only repeat the ancient maxim: The neglectionof experiments can never save a theory.Prof. Spencer thinks that the formula which she obtains at her "new relative velocity"approach allows to explain the effect in the Edwards' experiment (Phys. Rev. D , 14, 922,1976). First I must say that the report of Edwards et al. is written so badly that onlya person who has not what to do on this Earth would spend time to try to decipher it. Sansburyhas presented a much more better written report (Rev. Sc. Instr. , 56, 415, 1985) ona similar experiment, so that I suggest to the people who wish to understand the essenceof such kind of experiments to look at Sansbury's paper.I reprint Sansbury's paper in this volume, so that the readers of TWT do not lose timefor searching it in the libraries.The explanation of this effect is childishly simple, and one has not to change thefundamental electromagnetic formula with the aim to "explain" it, as Prof. Spencer does.The fundamental formulas are sajnjt. They must be touched only at extremely critical situations. Edwards' effect is a simple side effect and its explanation can be done as follows: