Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Flemings right hand rule....

  1. #1 Flemings right hand rule.... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2
    Hi friends,
    here i have some information regarding flemings right hand rule which is very usefull. you can go through it.
    Fleming's right hand rule (for generators) shows the direction of induced current flow when a conductor moves in a magnetic field.

    The right hand is held with the thumb, first finger and second finger mutually perpendicular to each other {at right angles}, as shown in the diagram .

    * The Thumb represents the direction of Motion of the conductor.

    * The First finger represents the direction of the Field.

    * The Second finger represents the direction of the induced or generated Current (in the classical direction, from positive to negative).

    * One particular way of remembering the rule is the "FBI" acronym for Force(or otherwise motion), B as the magnetic field sign and I as the current. The subsequent letters correspond to subsequent fingers, counting from the top. Thumb -> F; First finger -> B; Second finger -> I

    * Another mnemonic for this rule is "Manchester Football Club - starting from the thumb and taking the initial letters gives "MFC", as described above.

    ---------------------------------
    steven..

    so for more information click below Click here


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Flemings right hand rule.... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by skr1234
    Hi friends,
    here i have some information regarding flemings right hand rule which is very usefull. you can go through it.
    Fleming's right hand rule (for generators) shows the direction of induced current flow when a conductor moves in a magnetic field.

    The right hand is held with the thumb, first finger and second finger mutually perpendicular to each other {at right angles}, as shown in the diagram .

    * The Thumb represents the direction of Motion of the conductor.

    * The First finger represents the direction of the Field.

    * The Second finger represents the direction of the induced or generated Current (in the classical direction, from positive to negative).

    * One particular way of remembering the rule is the "FBI" acronym for Force(or otherwise motion), B as the magnetic field sign and I as the current. The subsequent letters correspond to subsequent fingers, counting from the top. Thumb -> F; First finger -> B; Second finger -> I

    * Another mnemonic for this rule is "Manchester Football Club - starting from the thumb and taking the initial letters gives "MFC", as described above.

    ---------------------------------
    steven..

    so for more information click below Click here


    the right hand rule is extremely important and to fully comprehend it will change physics forever.

    the magnetic field will have its counter part; the electric field (causally speaking, of course)

    Just as there is no electron without a proton somewhere (sure they can be divided but to maintain causality; the other must be identified, otherwise that 'uncertainty' issue unfolds; because one is entangled to the other (see any battery))

    there is no electric field without a magnetic field at a perpendicular planes


    and what is electromagnetism? Light!

    this shares that "THE" based unit of energy 'could be the photon itself' (light)

    where as in the planck scheme; he got no magnetic field as it was converted to angular momentum.

    meaning; many of the base items defined within physics have a built in error and it is being shared that to address the 'right hand rule' as being absolute; then the base unit of energy defined by 'h' (plancks constant will change)

    nothing magical about it; just causality and common sense sharing an oooops was made.

    a way to observe this, is to note that any string of energy (electric) covering any d/t (distance time) will have its other half. SO all energy is bound the same rule.


    be certain; it's right!


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    Maths, maths, maths.

    Prove this in maths so I can understand what you're talking about.

    and what is electromagnetism? Light!

    this shares that "THE" based unit of energy 'could be the photon itself' (light)
    This would seem to be saying that light is the basic unit of energy, and if you are saying that, prove it, and prove that it works with all other phenomena associated with EM fields.

    Also, the right hand rule describes phenomena observed, it doesn't state anything profound, and it doesn't introduce new data. So what does it have to do with your new theory?
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    Maths, maths, maths.

    Prove this in maths so I can understand what you're talking about.
    you like tic tac toe?

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/HFrame.html

    play for awhile.

    when i can ask you a few questions and you understand what they mean; i will go on to the next item.

    right now learn about the right hand rule and that base requisite when ever energy exchanges.

    then go to mawell


    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc

    and what is electromagnetism? Light!

    this shares that "THE" based unit of energy 'could be the photon itself' (light)
    This would seem to be saying that light is the basic unit of energy, and if you are saying that, prove it, and prove that it works with all other phenomena associated with EM fields.
    do you have the time?

    are you ready to rumble???????????????

    Also, the right hand rule describes phenomena observed, it doesn't state anything profound, and it doesn't introduce new data. So what does it have to do with your new theory?
    not my theory

    just observing "REALITY" (an too much data to even remotely be far fetched) See Thoth, Roger Bacon, Newton, Faraday; to see who knew well before i ever did.

    Name ONE line items i ever post that is not true. I have no intent to fib ONCE.

    i did not claim a thesis.................. (not since the early 80's when defining how neurons exchange at the synapse; Photon Neuron Conduction)

    since then i cause nothing but trouble (because as soon as you start comprehending how life and reality works; my turrets becomes contageous and everyone starts saying "life" llllllife: abuses entropy!)

    it's a common psychosis!



    perhaps start reading up on current events; the world is in for another paradigm shift.



    try not to just discredit without doing a little homework

    if you like i can offer a more than you could read in a life time

    but if ranting an raving is the MO around here

    i can leave

    either you are interested in learning or shut up and let the kids teach you later
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    1. What do tic tac toe and the link have to do with each other?

    2. When you can formulate questions and assertions in a manner that is meaningful and non-rambling, I will not need math to decipher your English.

    3. The RHR is a derivative of Maxwell's equations, which are taken directly from Ampere, Faraday, and Gauss. Maxwell's addition was to group the equations together and offset for displacement current through a media. This is not the only RHR.

    4. I actually do not have the time to teach you all of electromagnetic theory, but if you post your assertions in plain English, without rambling, I will read them and point out your flaws. Of course, feel free to post the math. Math is the language of physics, and science in general; if you can't speak the language, you don't belong posting new theories.

    5.
    this shares that "THE" based unit of energy 'could be the photon itself' (light)
    This is what I consider your lie until you prove it. No physicist has ever had a credible theory that said this. You are telling me that Thoth, Roger Bacon, Newton, and Faraday have all claimed this. So prove it. Show me in their work, their texts, where they say this.

    6. Also, I would like to read "Photon Neuron Conduction," please tell me where I can get it, as the university computers don't seem to be able to find anything in their rather extensive database. If I remember correctly, from googling it, I got a bunch of references to it in your posts at all sorts of science forums, where you are usually being belligerent to other posters, and using it as some sort of appeal to yourself as authority. And yes, our databases cover 1982, but I did a full search of 1950-present, over a list of more than 150 journals. ( http://qk3bw7nm6m.search.serialssolutions.com/ This is our journal list.)

    7. I was not trying to discredit you. I was trying to understand what you were saying, but now I know you will react "violently" to any perceived question of your statements. So I must insist that you set your self proclaimed psychosis aside and stop intentionally causing trouble. Also, please stop ranting and raving, and actually post a well-thought out summary of what you were previously saying so that I and others might correctly understand your assertions and challenge them appropriately if we believe they are wrong.

    Have a good weekend.
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    1. What do tic tac toe and the link have to do with each other?
    physics is tic tac toe to me.

    i was playing, as a kid, while most could not understand what it was; so i called it tic tac toe to my friends

    2. When you can formulate questions and assertions in a manner that is meaningful and non-rambling, I will not need math to decipher your English.
    perhaps look up the words in a dictionary or even google the terms, before ranting; like your first post.

    i am not here to make you happy or even remotely be liked by any. either you want to observe or you don't; but quit the appeal to me changing for you


    3. The RHR is a derivative of Maxwell's equations,
    sorry, it is almost like entanglement; it "exists" and them 'contributers' have been trying to describe it.

    Don't be ranting as if they 'created' the RHR in math.

    which are taken directly from Ampere, Faraday, and Gauss. Maxwell's addition was to group the equations together and offset for displacement current through a media. This is not the only RHR.
    i know that....

    but that RULE is far greater in FACT than the 2LoT.

    4. I actually do not have the time to teach you all of electromagnetic theory,
    fool, stop right there.

    when you can perform the transition from mass to energy and back, (final ToE) then you will be up to speed.
    but if you post your assertions in plain English, without rambling, I will read them and point out your flaws.
    do you know what 'assuming' does to credibility? (your flawed at the premise)

    Of course, feel free to post the math. Math is the language of physics, and science in general; if you can't speak the language, you don't belong posting new theories.
    If existence only operates ONE way, then the math is the 'name' to know.

    you talking to the hammer himself

    [quote]
    5.
    this shares that "THE" based unit of energy 'could be the photon itself' (light)

    This is what I consider your lie until you prove it. No physicist has ever had a credible theory that said this. You are telling me that Thoth, Roger Bacon, Newton, and Faraday have all claimed this. So prove it. Show me in their work, their texts, where they say this.
    now i like that kind of argument!

    I have no problem with this but you best keep the idiots clear and tell your admin; no touching anything.

    ie... i will not put the ToE up, but i will lead you to her if you just step back and take the time. If i am wrong, we can start cutting off my fingers, one at a time.

    point being; 3 decades of this, all by my lonesome. I don't work in the field, no formal education on it since putting my finger up, in 83'; but i made a promise, and i have been working at it most all my life. Don't want the name, the fame or a damn thing from anyone; i intend only to give the next generation a chance at understanding LIFE.

    the rest is for the birds
    6. Also, I would like to read "Photon Neuron Conduction," please tell me where I can get it,
    there is only one copy left that i know of and sealed for historical reasons.

    unless you can find the idiots at Cal Tech, MIT, Berkeley, UC Irvine, and a few others who rec'd the work, from the foolhearty 16yr old trying to assist.

    the comment i got back was, 'you can't slow a photon, as it contradicts relativity" and that was it for me. I quit, THEIR game and to this day, i still have animosity towards any per se authority within the scientific community.

    ie... if any of science cannot comprehend 'energy upon mass' then that alone tells me, the comprehension of what energy is; is not understood.

    i could care less what your degree suggests. Lavoisier was on top of the conveyance but for some reason, fools discounted it.

    you are usually being belligerent to other posters,
    i hate BS'ers

    ever deal with a right-wing-nut religious person? ever notice how powerful they feel and stand fast to their beliefs?

    Well a professor in science can be far worse and then the goofs who are oooosually the forum mods and per se Dr's with degree, are often the most horridly biased and complacent.

    it is just the funniest thing ya ever saw!

    (i will provide you with enough material to last a life time, and if i am wrong am truly willing to give up everything i own; but a man with credentials will stand by his beliefs and reputation over anything)

    huge difference of integrity (i have done the work, others talk about it)

    7. I was not trying to discredit you. I was trying to understand what you were saying, but now I know you will react "violently" to any perceived question of your statements.
    you slammed into me like a freight train because i wrote something you did not UNDERSTAND. NO OTHER reason!

    you feel perhaps you the pit boss

    and then checked into me, looking into MY credentials versus looking into the material.

    typical!

    So I must insist that you set your self proclaimed psychosis aside and stop intentionally causing trouble.
    self proclaimed? Why not just label me yourself?



    Also, please stop ranting and raving,
    i am only talking about me, because of your rant; be responsible and accept that you drew "first blood"

    and actually post a well-thought out summary of what you were previously saying so that I and others might correctly understand your assertions and challenge them appropriately if we believe they are wrong.
    don't care about beliefs.

    everything i post, will have evidence, nothing changes mother nature; but reality will change mankind.


    Have a good weekend.
    and to u2
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    951
    doesn't take much to keep you guys entertained , does it?
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by fizzlooney
    doesn't take much to keep you guys entertained , does it?
    tic tac toe is a great game, especially when played against an intellect like Bishadi.
    I'm currently amusing myself trying to understand how to arrange the letters of his name to make the words 'full of shit'. I know it has to work, I just haven't figured it out yet. :wink:
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Quote Originally Posted by fizzlooney
    doesn't take much to keep you guys entertained , does it?
    I'll just point out that at least some of us don't reply to posters like Bishadi for our own amusement (not entirely anyway). As DrRocket has pointed out a number of times, it's too easy for innocent lurkers to be misled by such people if no one steps in to correct them.
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    I will always stand by my belief that every theory, no matter how incredible must be checked into. Scientists have no right to reject something because it is not the consensus. Rather in those cases, they should carefully examine, test, and properly disposed of the theory with solid evidence to the contrary, if it is indeed false.

    In my first post, I questioned what he was writing so I could understand what he was saying before I formed any opinion. His second post drove me to reply to find out why he reacted that way. His third post validates me and every other member that has argued with him in other threads. He admits to having no formal education, and to have never been published despite his insinuations (in other threads) that he had been in 1982.

    Now, I guess, he's waiting for me to ask you all to be kind and not post about him for a few minutes so that he can post supporting evidence. Please, admins (not that I thought you would trash it), overlook this thread for trash or pseudo until he posts his proof that Thoth, Roger Bacon, Newton, and Faraday wrote that validates him. I'm curious.

    Finally, Bishadi, you actually said you have Tourette's disease and psychosis in your second post, I was alluding to that. Also, I've asked the admins to be nice, so please, post that evidence now.
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
     

  12. #11  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by alienmindsinc
    I will always stand by my belief that every theory, no matter how incredible must be checked into. Scientists have no right to reject something because it is not the consensus. Rather in those cases, they should carefully examine, test, and properly disposed of the theory with solid evidence to the contrary, if it is indeed false.

    .
    Rejecting his nonsense has nothing to do with consensus. It takes about 3 seconds to recognize that he is babbling and there is no content.

    If you have sufficient background you can investigate, evaluate and dispose in very little time. And believe it or not do all of that carefully and rigorously.
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    typical responses (from the obsolete)

    To put the thread on track;

    here is a link to Faraday's Law
    http://electron9.phys.utk.edu/phys13...inductance.htm

    the math of maxwell and the other item to observe is EMF

    THE right hand rule is like a LAW of electromagnetism. ie... notice most all electricity is using the LAW; such that to generate electricity, the RHR is absolute.

    And this LAW is natural was not predicted but observed. Spend some time reading faraday; he is more than sharp (kind of like a tesla of his day)



    __________________________________________________ _____________

    the other tangents to the thread, such as my comment of the 'others' of science that also shared the same base idea, that has governed my pursuit, is that 'em' (light/electromagnetism) was to be observed as the key to defining energy

    that is the claim... and by that nature will confirm mass is just em affixed in time (postulate)

    and the math (not gonna publish) is what the whole world of physics is seeking (the transition)

    but i found out many moons ago, that last part is not necessary to address the sciences of LIFE (the medical field, chemistry; addressing the ailments (most all))

    as well, philosophically; with 'light' as the key addressing LIFE and what LIFE is upon mass (the comprehension of, that is consistent with both nature and natural experience)

    basically, by a change of observance (philosophically) coupled with the math (the last word), then most every phenomenon in existence can be described.

    I opened into this thread to share, that the light (em) and the understanding of the RHR is where to begin that quest and to observe em as the basis of what energy IS, then the consistancy removes the uncertainties of today's sciences.

    no new magical forces (dark crap) and the frame can also be applied to most all theology


    ie............ notice the right hand rule will allow any to understand the 'cross' the 'ankh' and why from THOTH thru to little ol me; that the light is what defines LIFE

    and personally; comprehending life is what SCIENCE is for

    the rest of it, chasing the buck, is pretty selfish when we have the next generations to be responsible to



    I will leave ya with a Faraday quote (he kept awesome records)

    """I have long held an opinion, almost amounting to conviction, in common I believe with many others of natural knowledge, that the various forms under which the forces of matter are made manifest have one common origin; or, in other words, are so directly and mutually dependent, that they are convertible, as it were, one into another, and possess equivalents of power in their action. In modern times the proofs of their convertibility have been accumulated to a very considerable extent, and a commencement made of the determination of their equivalent forces."

    i am not going to post up what Tesla said, but be certain his featish to the frame of 3 (use of 'the' 3 parts) was based on this exact understanding.

    and any who know the T man, would already know, he was practically the BOSS of em................... (In contrast: edison is the perfect example of what business does to science)


    perhaps the folks who rant rather than DO science should post on other threads

    let the kids learn as at least i post up material to read and observe.

    My claim is 'everyone' can understand life and that is the most important care i will ever have while on this site.

    This is not about me, it is about our future; let'em grow. Support 'life to continue,' by adding to the comprehension not tearing down what you don't understand.

    Help me assist them!
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    139
    Actually, DrRocket, if you did reject him immediately at the first post, your rejection has everything to do with consensus. The current thought is that anyone that types like him is uneducated, and not worth the time to respond. The assumption is that everyone will immediately see him exactly the way you do. You would not give him a job interview, and neither would I, if his resume were written like that.

    Consensus is not usually wrong, but there are outlier cases where going against the typical belief is the correct action. My original post was because I was trying to understand if he was misunderstanding wave/particle duality, or if he were truly believing that the photon is a unit of energy.

    I admit, for the most part he hasn't answered any of my questions; choosing instead to repeat his same lines and accusations.

    As for the posts after his first reply to me, I knew exactly how this was going to end, as did everyone else that read it. (I expect the trash bin any day now.) The other replies were insults (with exception of Magi), and completely unnecessary. His first post alone, left unchecked, could, as Magi pointed out, very well damage the education of lurkers.

    What is potentially damaging to lurkers, is the assertion that the RHR is a law. The right hand rule is not a law, but is derived from Maxwell's equations. It is a "rule of thumb" for students, a mnemonic that helps them check their work, and make certain that it comes out somewhat correctly. We call it a "reality check."

    As far as the light theory goes: It is at best pseudo-science, at worst, trash. Light has nothing to do with these symbols, and they hold no special powers.
    --
    -M

    "Those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
    safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin, An Historical Review of Pennsilvanya, 1759
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    i think its good to have slightly crazy people at science

    after all quantum physics proves nature is kind of crazy

    so their original views rarely though sometimes hit the nail
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    i think its good to have slightly crazy people at science

    after all quantum physics proves nature is kind of crazy

    so their original views rarely though sometimes hit the nail
    Me a real live Bacon-bit (lineage in fact)

    Others do still argue that the Franciscans kept Bacon in isolated confinement for many years, and prevented from teaching his scientific views. Bacon is quoted as writing in 1267, about his time in a small cell in Paris, "...for my superiors and brothers, disciplining me with hunger, kept me under close guard and would not permit anyone to come to me, fearing that my writings would be divulged to others [rather] than to the chief pontiff and themselves,"
    Roger Bacon, O.F.M. (c. 1214–1294), also known as Doctor Mirabilis (Latin: "wonderful teacher"), was an English philosopher and Franciscan friar who placed considerable emphasis on empiricism. He is sometimes credited as one of the earliest European advocates of the modern scientific method[1] inspired by the works of Plato via early Islamic scientists.

    my hero

    the Opus maius is Stoic: language study, natural philosophy/mathematics, morals. The general context is theological and Franciscan: the arts and sciences leading to human well being in this world and the next. It is also clear that Bacon is constructing a “new model” for medieval philosophy, one in which Aristotelian concerns are taken up and transcended in a Neo-Platonism adapted towards Moral Philosophy and Christian Theology. Metaphysics is subordinated to Moral Philosophy. The latter becomes the end or finis of linguistic and scientific study. Logic is reduced to Mathematics, and the applications of mathematics become central to an understanding of the sciences. The applications of mathematics can in turn be used in religion and theology.
    i say it is by understanding 'life' at the molecular scale; that 'instinct' of life shares the rule quite clearly; to continue. ie...life: purposed to continue

    which to understand the rule of nature, the life can be defined

    the math is just the 'last word'


    Bacon presents reasons for a reduction of logic to mathematics (a kind of reversal of modern logicism) and sees mathematics as the key to an understanding of nature. Clearly, he is proclaiming the “usefulness” of mathematics for knowledge; he is not doing mathematical theory
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    The OP was a spammer. His link has been changed to something appropriate and banned as the dirtbag his is.
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •