From: heathjohn2@gmail.com   
      
   [[Mod. note -- I apologise for the long delay in processing this article,   
   which was originally submitted on 2017-03-04 -- jt]]   
      
   On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 2:25:15 AM UTC-5, Rich L. wrote:   
   > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 2:02:33 AM UTC-6, John Heath wrote:   
   > > I asked this question in an electrical   
   > > engineering group. The room went so   
   > > quiet you could hear a pin drop. Maybe   
   > > physics research group is a more   
   > > appropriate place to pose this question.   
   > > I will copy and paste the original question.   
   > >   
   > > This one has been on my bucket list for   
   > > a while. How to make a Lorentz contraction   
   > > voltage measurement ? It is my hope by   
   > > putting some of my failed attempts on the   
   > > table that others on the list could breath   
   > > new life into this problem.  An out of the   
   > > box approach from different shoes that   
   > > would not occur to myself.   
   > >   
   > > First of all what is a Lorentz contraction   
   > > voltage measurement. If one probe is grounded   
   > > and the other toughing a magnet the voltage   
   > > should be extremely negative , 100 KV or   
   > > so. Not just a magnet but a copper wire   
   > > carrying 10 amps should also have effective   
   > > electron contraction leading to an extreme   
   > > negative voltage around the wire. However it   
   > > can not be measured with a conventional meter   
   > > as the meter leads are entering the magnetic   
   > > frame of reference therefore it cancels out.   
   > > Its a no win.   
   > >   
   > > Failed attempts on my part. Use a magnetic   
   > > probe. Close but no cigar as a magnetic probe   
   > >  , current probe , makes a distinction between   
   > > north and south poles. Lorentz electron length   
   > > contraction makes no such distinction as both   
   > > north and south poles have effective length   
   > > contraction therefore negative charge. Same   
   > > is true of current in a wire regardless of   
   > > current direction.   
   > >   
   > > Build a mechanical mono pole south in and   
   > > another north in with flat magnets then   
   > > measure the voltage between both opposite   
   > > mono poles from the inside. Can not remember   
   > > why I thought that would work. Suffice to   
   > > say it did not work.   
   > >   
   > > Not tried yet. A gold leaf jar. Replace the   
   > > gold leaf with two pieces of iron then connect   
   > > the new iron leaf jar with thin bars of iron   
   > > to make contact with the magnet. An iron leaf   
   > > jar would not make a distinction between north   
   > > or south poles of a magnet as in both cases the   
   > > iron leafs would separate a little. However   
   > > would this be measuring a Coulomb force caused   
   > > by Lorentz electron contraction or just a dirty   
   > > trick to lose the distinction between a north   
   > > and south poles?   
   > >   
   > > One more. Sky charge. Sky charge is about   
   > > 100 volts per meter or 200 volts from head to   
   > > toe. Like the Lorentz electron contraction   
   > > this is a voltage that can not be measured   
   > > with a conventional meter. The solution is a   
   > > voltage field meter. It consist of a fan ,   
   > > sheet of copper and a hole on top. If there   
   > > is a fluctuating voltage at the copper plate   
   > > that equals the frequency of the fan blades   
   > > than there is an electric field. Maybe this   
   > > would work?   
   > >   
   > > Any thoughts on this would be welcome.   
   >   
   > I think this is a little bit confused.  The "Lorentz Contraction   
   > Voltage" you are talking about is more conventionally called the   
   > magnetic field.  I don't know how you calculated 100KV for a static   
   > wire, but I think that is based on a misunderstanding of the conditions   
   > in a conducting wire:   
   >   
   > Perhaps your calculation would be correct if you took a line charge of   
   > stationary electrons with the density in a typical metal and then   
   > started that line charge moving.  however in a typical wire conducting a   
   > current, unless the wire is itself at a very high voltage there is   
   > negligible electric field around the wire.  This is because the way we   
   > normally induce a current in a wire, by connecting it to an   
   > electromotive force (i.e. a battery or power supply) we force the   
   > voltage on the wire to some value wrt our surroundings.  This results in   
   > the charge density of the moving charges remaining constant IN OUR   
   > FRAME.  The source of the magnetic field when you are moving parallel to   
   > the wire is that this balance of charge density does not hold in all   
   > frames due to the Lorentz contraction.  Thus a charge moving parallel to   
   > the wire does not see balanced positive and negative charges, but an   
   > imbalance, either positive or negative, and the acceleration on the   
   > moving charge due to this imbalance is the 'magnetic field'.;   
   >   
   > You should note that this Lorentz contraction explanation of the   
   > magnetic field only works for motion parallel to the wire.  Magnetic   
   > forces on a charge moving perpendicular to the wire are more difficult   
   > to explain.   
   >   
   > Rich L   
      
   I hear what you are saying. However you can not have your cake and   
   eat it.  By this I mean embracing the Lorentz contraction interpretation   
   for a magnetic force comes with a price. The price paid is you can   
   not use the phrase magnet force as the only tools available is   
   relative movement and Coulomb's   
    law. In short no cheating :<). All forces   
   experienced when holding two magnets in your hands must be explained   
   with a Coulomb force only. Two poles with a negative 100 KV charge   
   was picked out of thin air to demonstrate the magnitude of the   
   voltages required for just a small Coulomb force let alone the   
   forces of a strong magnet. Those voltages would be in the MV range.   
   A meter today can measure in the uV range yet a magnetic Coulomb   
   force 10^12 times greater can not be measured? There has to be a   
   way.   
      
   Part of the problem has to do with energy conservation laws. The   
   ocean has gravity hills caused by under water mountains. The mountain   
   is denser than water so the water bunches up into a small hill. If   
   you try to water ski down this small hill it will not work as the   
   hill is a flat surface from a gravity point of view. The Coulomb   
   force from a magnet has the same property of potential energy of a   
   voltage difference but you can not measure it in the same way one   
   can not ski down a gravity hill.   
      
   I have a second example of this with microphones.  Most today are   
   condenser type. A condenser mic is made of a thin sheet of plastic   
   with cigar shaped molecules that are positive on one side and   
   negative on the other. Much like liquid crystals for a computer   
   monitor. They freeze the sheet of plastic so that the molecules are   
   stuck with + charge on one side and - charge on the other. This   
   again is like the gravity hill.  The voltage potential is there but   
   it can not be measured or discharged as the molecules are frozen   
   in place. However if there is movement of the polarized plastic   
   sheet relative to a metal surface a measurement can be made as   
   energy was put into the system. That measured voltage difference   
   is the output of a condenser type mic.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)