On Dec 30, 4:36*pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:
Uzytkownik "K1TTT" napisal w ...
On Dec 30, 3:59 pm, "Szczepan Bialek" wrote:





So " During those years there were many changes in the understanding of
electricity and magnetism" and the hand rule becomes a physical law.
S*
so you have taken 2 unrelated drawings without the explanatory text to

show what?

Maxwell model (page
304):http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Phy...Lines_of_Force
"Let the vertical circles V and V represent the molecular vortices of
which
the line of magnetic force is the axis. V revolves as the hands of a
watch,
and V the opposite way."

"We have thus obtained a point of view from which we may regard the
relation
of an electric current to its lines of force as analogous to the relation
of
a toothed wheel or rack to wheels which it drives."

The 'hand rule' as you call it is not a physical law, it is a

convention that is used to easily remember relationships expressed in
higher mathematics. There is no magic or physical meaning to it... in
fact both 'hand rules' are used depending on how you learned your
electronics, as long as you are consistent the provide identical
results.

But what kind of force cause the magnetic flux?

In Part IV Maxwell wrote:
"Now it seems natural to suppose that all the direct effects of any cause
which is itself of a longitudinal character, must be them- selves
longitudinal, and that the direct effects of a rotatory cause must be
themselves rotatory. A motion of translation along an axis cannot produce
a
rotation about' that axis unless it meets with some special mechanism,
like
that of a screw, which con- nects a motion in a given direction along the
axis with a rotation in a given direction round it ; and a motion of
rotation, though it may produce tension along the axis, cannot of itself
produce a current in one direction along the axis rather than the other.."

Does Heaviside's mechanism in form of the 'hand rule' "works fine for
you."
EM is for kids. Are You?
S*
EM is for kids?? *i take it that you think EM is too simple and you

must have a more complicated theory?

EM is is a simple version of Maxwell's model.

if that is so then i understand

why you are trying to study ancient research, back then there were
many competing theories each with separate complicated descriptions
about rotations and forces... all of those were made simple when
Maxwell

It was Heaviside,

combined the essential 4 equations to describe electromagnetic

interactions, add in ohms law and the Lorentz force equation and you
have everything necessary to describe EM effects... Sometimes simple
is best.

Maxwell's model and EM by Heaviside are not simple.
The most simple and the best is the gas (electron) analogy. All waves are
the same.
S*

analogies are not theories, nor are any good at making predictions.
being able to predict things is required of theories, they must be
able to predict things that can be tested to either prove or disprove
the theory. an analogy is just a story trying to explain one thing as
if it were something else, this unfortunately doesn't work very well.

Maxwell's equations are very simple, that is what is best about them.
They have taken the absolute simplest set of equations necessary to
describe all electro-magnetic phenomena.