Also, if this was the case, then would it not lead to DC induction? There is no reason to think that the effect should be shielded by the protons, this should allow a coil feed with steady DC to induce a voltage in another co wound coil, and if it didn't work with electrically neutral matter, it would work with a negative charge applied.
We can assume that even in the charged example, no such DC induction exists. Can anyone explain why this wouldn't be so IF this effect was true? Still this does not rule out the possibility that an effect exists with accelerating electrons, their fields could compress in front and stretch out the back. But this would lead to induction opposite to the norm. Can anyone explain how this force could have gone unobserved? Are these arguments flawed? John On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 7:59 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In his model the coloumb force between two like charges increases when >> the charges are moving together and decreases when they are moving apart. >> > > This would lead to a few interesting conclusions if true. > > In a current carrying wire, stationary electrons in the wire would would > face increased repulsion to the electrons approaching and decreased > repulsion to those receding. > > This would induce those stationary electrons to move, and as such it would > mean electron drift current in a wire would always increase to be a > movement of all the free electrons (at a slower speed). > > The other is that the electrons that make up the current would see the > Columbic force of the protons as changed by this motion. > > To be honest I have not looked into the claim enough to understand if in > this example the electrons attraction to the approaching protons is > decreased or increased by this, but it should either assist or retard the > current. > > Since this is not known, does this disprove that this force exists, at > least in a relativistic sense. It could still exist with motion through a > reference frame since in that case the protons aren't moving and as such > are excluded from this interaction. > > John >
