The thorny way of truth - Free Energy Community

• w-AMPERE'S CARDINAL LAW IN EXPLAINING VIOLENT WATER ARCEXPLOSIONS VERSUS MAGNETIC POTENTIALDr. P.T. Pappas,Professor of Mathematics,Professor of Physics,Marcopulioti 26, Athens 11744, Greece.The alpha-torque hypothesis of Peter Graneau was presented inthe June 1989 issue of E&WW. This hypothesis was purported toexplain a series of effects unexplained by classicalelectrodynamics, i.e., violent wate-r arc explosions. Graneau ' 9alpha-torque hypothesis is an extension of the old concept ofNeumann potential, based on Ampere's cardinal law forelectrodynamic forces between currents. The cardinal law for twocurrents I., I,, can be written usin^ vector notation:Fj2 = -kr,2(l,lj/rj2bl2dsj-^dsj - (3/r,2^) (dSjTjjXdSjTjj) 1*1.where r. ,r, being the vector radii to I., I-; ^n"'*!"'*?' ^12 ^^^^^ ^^®force on I, by I,; and k being a coefficient depending on theunits(^).Graneau assigns to this law a "potential" function which in MKSAunits is given as:APj = -(jiQ/4n)I^Ijj(dmdn/r^jjj|)[ (0.5cose-l .5cos(2 +e)J 2.Graneau assumes that the principle of virtual work is valid forthis "potential". However, by differentiating with respect to allthe variables involved, he finds not only the original cardinalforce, but also two extra torque forces, namely the epsilon andalpha torques. The prime objection to the Graneau method arises^from the minimum mathematical requirement for applying theprinciple of virtual work. This minimum requirement is conservationof energy for the potential function. This is not shown by Graneau,nor can it be shown, because "potential 2", as an inverse distancelaw multiplied by an angle function, is not energy conserving.However, this deficiency is a major one, associated also with every"magnetic potential" definition. Indeed, as an example, we mayrefer to the fact that a "magnetic potential" can not determineconsistently the energy of the following two identical cases. Theenergy of a pair of two similar permanent magnets, as compared tothe energy of a pair of two similar coils, supplied with constantcurrents and generating magnetic fields identical to the magnets.The energy of the interacting coils is assumed to be supplied bythe voltage sustaining the currents. However, for the case of theequivalent permanent magnets the interacting energy is assumed tobe taken out from the magnetic potential of the fields themselves.It is obvious that for the two cases of pair of fields, assumedidentical, the same potentials are assumed different for the energytransactions. If a consistent magnetic "potential" existed, itshould have provided an identical description of the energytransactions for the magnets and coils. This inherent weakness,