.

It appeared in the December 2014

issue Vol. 27 No. 4, p. 570-579, OF
PHYSICS ESSAYS.

-----------------------------------AMPERE
ELECTRODYNAMICSPROOF AND PREDICTION
OF EMPIRICAL FARADAY
INDUCTION.
P.T. Pappaa, L.P. Pappasb, T.P. Pappasc.
a,b,c
26, Markopoulioti Street, Athens GR11744,
Greece.
a

ppappas@papimi.com,
b
lpappas@papimi.gr,ctpappas@papimi.gr.
Abstract: In this paper, induction is studied only with the
appropriate forces on each standing/moving charge by all other
standing/moving charges and not by any magnetic field or
mysterious flux. These appropriate forces should be called with
the older term electro-motive forces .
J. C. Maxwell, the Father of Modern Electromagnetism, who principally
only had experience with DC currents in batteries, claimed three inaccurate
theses:
1

1. Every current belongs in a closed circuit,

2. Every current is the same all along a circuit,
3. The Ampere force law is equivalent to the Lorentz force law, and
therefore, the Ampere law should be considered redundant, all of which are
propagated today. Realizing the actual inaccuracy of those three cases and
taking into account the Ampere Cardinal Force Law, superior
electrodynamics arises. In particular, consider the following:
A. A static conductor with AC, with current that is not DC battery current, or
B. A DC conductor moving perpendicularly, which produces a non-closed
secondary current perpendicular to the conductor. Taking into account
Amperes1 absolute, non-Relativistic, Electrodynamic Cardinal Law on other
closed or open circuits, proof and prediction of all details of Faradays
empirical induction law, the Lentz empirical rule is produced for the first
time. These laws gave the wrong impression to Einstein 11 Electrodynamics
for the moving bodies (with similar title and exact subject as Lorentzs12
ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENA IN A SYSTEM MOVING WITH ANY VELOCITY SMALLER THAN
THAT OF LIGHT)

since as early 1892 and 1895 and finally 1904, prior to Einsteins
paper in 1905, for the foundations of Special Relativity. In addition,
Amperes absolute-nonrelativistic, Electromotive Force Law exclusively
provides the real analytical distribution 4,5,6,7 of induction potential, which, for
the very first time, is determined. The wrongly assumed equivalent Lorentz
Law cannot determine this fact!
Amperes Law and its authors modifications always retain the principle of
action-reaction and momentum; in contrast to the Law of Lorentz which is
violating the conservation of momentum and angular momentum. Thus, the
Law of Lorentz cannot replace Amperes Law .
Amperes law may predict the propagation of electromagnetic near field
waves (see section VIII, ELECTRODYNAMIC +/- FORCE NEAR FIELD WAVES), or better
+/- electrodynamic force near field waves, without Maxwells equations. We
use the term electrodynamic for the magnetic field of a changing current
that is not what we suppose it to be for non-closed currents with quickly
changing currents. For such currents, a current change cannot
instantaneously occur at every point of a circuit, as it takes time to
propagate, despite Maxwells considerations. Maxwell did not know of Teslas
alternating currents during his time; rather, he knew only of batteries with DC
constant currents.
A changing AC current along a circuit cannot have the same value
everywhere because of the finite propagation of the current (see also the
experiments and measurements of Pappas3). Therefore, current changes
cannot have instantaneous propagation, making the current vary throughout
its circuit.
Therefore, a + /- electrodynamic near field force interaction wave may
11

naturally be expected for such AC currents but not for DC currents according
to the absolute-non relativistic law of Ampere.
In both AC producing electromagnetic near field wave currents and DC nonproducing electromagnetic near field currents, DC and AC are different types
of currents with different results; nevertheless, these differences do not
affect the relativistic Lorentz Law.
The theory of relativity is irrelevant to this thesis, and relativitys founding
considerations are proven incorrect 4,6. Ampere electrodynamics is meant to
replace Maxwells electromagnetism, with its ill-conceived theory of magnetic
fields for individual moving charges, elementary particles and changing
currents.

Rsum : Linduction, dans ce cas, nest tudie que par les

forces appropries sur chaque charge immobile ou en
mouvement, par toutes les autres charges tant immobiles ou
en mouvement, et non par un champ magntique ou flux
mystrieux quelconque. Ces forces en particulier doivent tre
appeles avec un terme ancien comme ' des forces
Electromotrices'. J. C. Maxwell, le Pre d ' Electromagntisme
moderne, qui na principalement eut dexprience quavec les
courants continus dans les batteries, a affirm trois thses
inexactes :
A. Chaque courant appartient un circuit ferm", et que
B. Chaque courant est exactement le mme le long de son
circuit
C. La loi de la force d Ampre est quivalente la loi de
la force de Lorentz, et donc la loi d Ampre doit tre considre
comme superflue"
Toutes ces trois lois sont reconnues ainsi jusque nos jours.
En tenant compte de la vrit actuelle de ces trois cas et
en appliquant la loi cardinale de la force d Ampre, une
Electrodynamique d ordre suprieure prend forme. Considrez
en particulier:
A. Un conducteur statique avec un courant alternatif qui n'est
pas un courant direct (CD) de la batterie, ou
B. Un conducteur mobile CD (courant direct) se dplaant
perpendiculairement
un CD, qui produit un courant secondaire non-ferm et
perpendiculaire au conducteur. En considrant la loi absolue,
non-Relativiste originale et Cardinale Electrodynamique d'
3

Ampre1 applique d autres circuits ferms ou ouverts, la

preuve et la prvision de tous les dtails de la loi de l' induction
empirique de Faraday, la rgle empirique de Lentz sest produite
pour la premire fois.
Ces lois ont produit une fausse impression concernant la Loi de
la Relativit Spciale d'Einstein11. La loi Cardinale d Ampre,
tant une loi absolue, naturellement non relativiste, une loi de
Force Electromotrice qui fournit exclusivement la distribution
4,5,6,7
analytique relle effective du potentiel de l'induction
dtermin pour la premire fois.
La loi quivalente de Lorentz suppos tre fausse ne saurait
dterminer ce fait!
La Loi d'Ampre et les modifications par les auteurs de cet
article conservent toujours le principe d'action-raction et du
momentum , et ils sont en opposition la loi de Lorentz
laquelle se trouve en opposition avec la loi de la conservation du
momentum et du momentum angulaire, et cette loi de
Lorentz, la loi d' Ampre et ses versions peuvent se remplacer.
La loi d' Ampre peut nous donner la prdiction de propagation
des ondes Electromagntiques en champ proche, (voir au bas
section C, sous-section nomme VAGUES DE FORCES
ELECTRODYNAMIQUES +/- EN CHAMPS PROCHES ) ou encore
mieux Ondes de force Electrodynamique +/- en champ proche,
sans les quations de Maxwell.
Nous utilisons le terme "Electrodynamique" pour le champ
magntique d un courant changeant, n'est pas suppos tre d
usage pour les courants qui sont non-ferms, tels que toutes
courants changeant rapidement dans le temps.
Pour ces cas un changement de courant, ne peut pas avoir lieu
instantanment tous les points d'un circuit parce qu il faut un
minimum du temps pour quil se propage, malgr les
considrations de Maxwell. Lui-mme son poque, ne
connaissait pas les courants alternatifs de Tesla, mais il
connaissait principalement les courants constants continues (CD
DC) des batteries.
Un courant alternatif changeant travers un circuit ne peut pas
avoir partout (dans ce mme circuit) la mme valeur, cause de
la propagation non instantane de ce courant, (voir aussi les
expriences et mesures de Pappas3). Donc les changements de
courant ne peuvent pas avoir une propagation instantane, de
ce fait le courant ne peut tre le mme dans son circuit en
4

entier . C est cause de cela, qu une onde lectrodynamique

produit des interactions peut tre naturellement produites pour
ces sortes de courants alternatifs et non pas pour un courant
direct continu, selon la loi non-relativiste et appele absolue,
d Ampre. Sil s agit de courants alternatif qui sont des
courants producteurs dondes lectromagntiques en champ
proche, ou sil sagit de courants continus non producteurs
dondes lectromagntiques en champ proche, ceux-ci tant
deux diffrents sortes de courant avec des rsultats diffrents,
ils ne font aucune diffrence pour la Loi Relativiste de Lorentz.
La thorie de la Relativit est sans influence sur cette thse et
les considrations fondamentales de la Relativit sont
dmenties 4,6. L Electrodynamique d Ampre est destine
remplacer l' Electromagntisme de Maxwell avec sa thorie mal
conue du champ magntique concernant le dplacement des
charges lectriques individuelles, des particules lmentaires et
des courants changeants.

KEY WORDS
Ampere, electro-motive, forces, their modifications, induction.

I. INTRODUCTION
In 1873, according to Maxwell2 himself, [Amperes theory] is summed up in a formula from which
phenomena may be deduced, and which must always remain the cardinal formula of electrodynamics (a treatise on electricity and magnetism, 1873, v. 2, p. 175) .
In 1891, Maxwell2 considered the specific Ampere law as redundant compared to the Lorentz law.
He believed the two laws were equivalent and therefore experimentally indistinguishable. Here, we
shall show that this is not the case, and we will show that the two laws are theoretically and
experimentally distinguishable,
despite the current general belief of now days. See also the incorrect
statement of Tricker,1 page 55.
5

The key understanding of this paper is based on realizing the incorrect thesis of the
assumed father of electromagnetism, James Clerk Maxwell, who stated that the
current of a circuit is the same all over the circuit and that this is true regardless of
the circuit and regardless of whether the current is AC or DC. As we shall show, this is
an incorrect thesis, and it is generally believed to be true today. However, it is certainly
incorrect for changing currents in AC circuits and moving circuits, for AC circuits
because of the finite propagation speed of currents and for moving circuits because of
their different interactions between various points, resulting in changing distances
between the moving points of the moving circuits, which induces, in both cases, only
changing currents. Maxwell, during his time, used only the constant currents of
batteries. Nikola Teslas invention for alternating current apparently came too late for
Maxwell.
An apparent perfect differential, which is multiplied by changing currents, is
not, as a rule, integrated to zero, as was wrongly generally assumed, for a
closed circuit. The exception is when the current is the same over all of the
integrated circuit
(which, in general, is not true). This incorrect argument incorrectly makes
the two laws equivalent in general.
As we shall see, the two laws are
theoretically and experimentally3 distinguishable when considering
changing currents. A typical incorrect example is in the introduction of the
first page of Ref. 13.

FIG. 1. Two fundamental examples from Modern Radio Engineering, NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME OF MAXWELL.
The above tuned or untuned circuits with the loop and the circle are perfect closed circuits. The current
induced by the right circuit is an arbitrary VHF changing current, and that on the left is a VHF sinusoidal
changing current.
Both currents in the circuits are sometimes zero, +maximum or - minimum.
They are different at every point!
Maxwell was teaching that in a closed circuit, the current should be the same everywhere!
APPARENTLY, MAXWELL COULD NEVER IMAGINE THE REALITY OF THE ABOVE CIRCUITS.

The cardinal Ampere 1,2 Non-Relativistic Law of 1821-1826, between two

currents I1 and I2 due to the element section ds1 of a circuit S1 on the element
section ds2 of circuit S2, is:

F12 =-k

{2ds2.ds1-

ds2.r12ds1.r12}

(1)
where r12 is the position vector from ds1 to ds2. , and the dot . represents the inner
product of the corresponding vector elements.
Therefore, because r12 = -r21, F12= -F21, with an inherent action-reaction, e.g., always
respecting the action-reaction principle. This is a real existing law, but today, it is a
hidden and secret law.
The last appearance of this law was in 1891 by James Clerk Maxwell2 in his Treatise
on Electricity and
Magnetism; Maxwell was the founder of todays electromagnetism.
This law, involving currents, or in other words, moving charges, is an absolute law. However, even
though the authors versions (see below) involve absolute velocities, they should be considered as
absolute only with respect to the dominant gravitational field. This fact has been established empirically
on earth and on spaceships carrying electronics, which are always functioning with respect to the
spaceships local dominating gravitational field.

In addition, this superior and forgotten law of Ampere seems to relate directly to
the gravity of yet unexplored nature. Consideration of these aspects will be
published in another paper.
Finally, by Amperes superior but hidden and forgotten law, unipolar induction, an
unsolved problem, seems to be resolved.

. MATHEMATICAL THEOREM1,2,3
Amperes law and its versions are equivalent to the relativistic
Lorentz12 law (SI units):
F=Q(E+VXB)
(2)
applied only when the source B field is due to a closed current, as it is the usual and
common application. (According to Maxwell, all currents are closed, which is, in general,
incorrect! (Currents of an independently moving electron are not closeD.)
For example, the varying current, as we presented above, or approaching spaced currents, which
cause induction, are not closed (see Fig. 1). Therefore, according to Maxwell (who is incorrect), the
two laws are always equivalent, and the law of Lorentz, which is simpler, should be preferred, or the
complicated law of Ampere, regardless that it is always correct, should be considered redundant.
We have to say that only in this case is the Lorentz law equivalent2 to Amperes law and its
equivalent versions. This is the only privileged case of the equivalence of Lorentz, in which the
Lorentz law respects mechanical action and reaction: a principle found correct for all of the universe
at all times.

III. THE AUTHORS MODIFICATION, CLARIFICATION AND REMARKS

ON AMPERES LAW.
First, consider the following mathematical proof of the very important identity
Ids = dqv
(3)
where dq is the total effective charge, even though, in reality, it is discreet, as it continues as
a streaming liquid charge moving with an effective velocity v along the element ds.
With I=dq / dt = lim (q / t),
I.ds = lim (q / t ). ds = dq lim (s / t) = dq lim (s / t) = dq.v, with t0, Q.E.D.
If we replace this identity 3 in the above Amperes Law, then, with similar simple
mathematics, it takes the following forms in MKSA units for effective values of
discreet moving charges:

0.CURRENT ELEMENT TO CURRENT ELEMENT. The original Ampere

formula WITH TWO ASSUMED CONTINUOUS CURRENTS:

F12 =-

I1I2 {2ds2.ds1-

ds2.r12ds1.r12}

(4)
1.CHARGE TO CHARGE. For a charge dq1 moving with velocity V1
and charge dq2 moving with velocity V2, we have:
F12=-

dq1dq2{2V1.V2 -

V2.r12V1.r12}

(5)

00=1/c2
2.SECTION WITH CURRENT TO CHARGE.
For a static section dS1 with current I1 and a free - charge e (free electron)
moving with V on axis S2, we have:
Fe1 =-

eI1. {2dSe.v-

dSe.re1V.re1}

(5a)

For a static section dS1 with current I1, and a fixed + charge p (fixed
proton) moving with V on axis S2, we have:
Fp1 =-

pI1. {2dSp.v-

dSp.rp1V.rp1}

(5b)
8

Immediate Remark: From 5a and 5b, we see protons and electrons of a

neutral conductor axis S1 receive the same and opposite total force from
a parallel moving conductor S2 with current I2. If some free electrons of S1,
in contrast to the fixed protons, move, a closed current exists (see fig 3);
then, on the closed and moving axis S2, an opposing motion force of axis
S2 is exercised due to the repulsive, opposite currents on S1 and S2, and
Amperes Cardinal Law, Eq. (1).
This opposition respects the principle of conservation of energy. This
is also known to be true experimentally.
3.MOVING SECTION WITH CURRENT TO STATIC CHARGE. For a
section dS2 with current I2 on a static charge dq1 moving with V2, we
have:
dq1I2{2dS2.ds1-

F12 =-

dS2.r12V2.r12}

(6)

4.COULOMB PLUS MOVING CHARGES. Also including the Coulomb

Law:
(7)
with

F12 =

00=1/ec2

F12 =

the forces between moving charges are (SI units):

{1/- 00{2V2.V1 -

dq1dq2

dq1dq2

V2.r12V1.r12}}

(8)

{1- 2V2.V1/c2 } , 1- 2V2.V1/c2 =

0 , V2=V1=V, 2V2.V1=C2,

V=C/1,41 = 212.765 /S.

FOR SIDE, BY SIDE MOVING ELECTRONS. I.E. FOR THIS VELOCITY, THE AMPERE
FORCE BECOMES BIGGER THAN THE COULOMB FORCE. ,
CULOMB, V=C.
.
. .

E=
ds=dqv, F=IdSXB=dqvxB, F=VXB/C2, F=Q(E+VXB)=, SIDE BY SIDE AT A DISTANCE ry,
MOVING VX CHARGES, STATIONARY OBSERVER SEES, Fc/ = Fc - magnforce.
9

-magnforce= Fc/ - Fc, AT VX=C, (FC+MF)=F, magnetic force q(CXB)= - F/ + FC

FC

MAGNETIC FORCE, q(CXB)

- 0+

-0 +Fc, VxC

DISPERSIVE COULOMB FORCE

GNETIC FORCE
AS VX C.

FOCUSING

BIOT-SAVART
In S.I units,

K=0/4,

00=1/c2

B=0/4 I dl sin/r2

B=(0/4)qv/r2

FOR V=C,
.
, =C B,
B=(0/4)qC/r2

E=(1/40)q/r2 B/E=C00=1/C,

F=qE=qCB
FOCUSING ME THN S.R.
ON THE CONTRARY, SEE-GOUGLE SELF FOCUSING
ELECTRON BEAMS, SEE NO 4 BELOW. ALSO, SEE SELF
FOCUSING BEAM TUBES.
A scanning electron microscope scans a beam of
electrons over a specimen to produce a magnified image
of an object. That's completely different from a TEM,
10

where the beam of electrons goes right through the

specimen.
1. Electrons are fired into the machine.
2. The main part of the machine (where the object is
scanned) is contained within a sealed vacuum
chamber because precise electron beams can't
travel effectively through air.
3. A positively charged electrode (anode) attracts the
electrons and accelerates them into an energetic
beam.
4. An electromagnetic coil brings the electron beam to
a very precise focus, much like a lens.
5. Another coil, lower down, steers the electron beam
from side to side.
6. The beam systematically scans across the object
being viewed.
7. Electrons from the beam hit the surface of the object
and bounce off it.
8. A detector registers these scattered electrons and
turns them into a picture.

11

9. A hugely magnified image of the object is displayed

on a TV screen.

THESE ALL PROVE THE NON

RELATIVISTIC AMPERE
FORCES AND DISPROVE
SPECIAL RELATIVITY.
BIOT-SAVART
In S.I units,

K=0/4,

00=1/c2

B=0/4 I dl sin/r2, , 4, Idl=qv,

sin=1 :

B=(0/4)qv/r2

FOR V=C,

B=(0/4)qC/r2,

E=(1/40)q/r2,

B/E=C00=1/C,

12

, =C B,
.

F=qEqCB
,
vc,
v<c,
qE>qvB,
13

qEDIVERGING>
qvBCOVERGING
FOCUSING ME THN S.R.
ON THE CONTRARY, SEE-GOUGLE SELF FOCUSING
ELECTRON BEAMS, SEE NO 4 BELOW. ALSO, SEE SELF
FOCUSING BEAM TUBES.
A scanning electron microscope scans a beam of
electrons over a specimen to produce a magnified image
of an object. That's completely different from a TEM,
where the beam of electrons goes right through the
specimen.
1. Electrons are fired into the machine.
2. The main part of the machine (where the object is
scanned) is contained within a sealed vacuum
chamber because precise electron beams can't
travel effectively through air.
3. A positively charged electrode (anode) attracts the
electrons and accelerates them into an energetic
beam.
4. An electromagnetic coil brings the electron beam to
a very precise focus, much like a lens.
5. Another coil, lower down, steers the electron beam
from side to side.
14

6. The beam systematically scans across the object

being viewed.
7. Electrons from the beam hit the surface of the object
and bounce off it.
8. A detector registers these scattered electrons and
turns them into a picture.
9. A hugely magnified image of the object is displayed
on a TV screen.

USING THE AMPERE

LAW
COULOMB PLUS MOVING CHARGES. Also including the Coulomb
(7)

Law:
with

the forces between moving charges are (SI

units):
15

F12 =
F12 =

dq1dq2

dq1dq2

{1/- 00{2V2.V1 -

V2.r12V1.r12}}

00=1/ec2

{1- 2V2.V1/c2 } , 1- 2V2.V1/c2 = 0 , V2=V1=V,

2V2.V1=C2,

V=C/1,41 = 212.765 /S.

v>212.765 Km/s,
FC<FAMP,

FC DISPRESIVE <FAMP CONVERGING,

NECESSARY CONDITION FOR PRECISE FOCUSINGCONVERGING,
AS IN AN ELECTRONIC MICROSCOPE.

IV. AMPERE FORCES PREDICT INDUCTION FROM A

CONDUCTOR WITH CHANGING AC CURRENT ONLY
ON ANOTHER CONDUCTOR. THESE FORCES PREDICT,
CORRECTLY, THAT FOR CONSTANT DC CURRENT,
THERE IS NO INDUCTION, I.E. PROOF AND PREDICTION
OF FARADAYS INDUCTION (for the first time).
Consider the following schematic of a configuration of a changing current I 2
generated by moving charges q2 and static charges q1 and q1 (electrons) left and
right, respectively, of the perpendicular foot on the upper parallel conductor S1, as
shown:
16

FIG. 2. Configuration of the set up to assist Fig. 3.

V. INDUCTION BY MOVING AXIS S2, THE MOTIONAL

INDUCTION.
Consider now the interaction of axis S2 moving with velocity V2 towards axis S1; according
to Amperes Cardinal Law; we have the following forces, shown in Fig. 3:

FIG. 3. AMPERE FORCES WITH AUTHORS MODIFICATIONS PREDICT FARADAYS INDUCTION, LENZS RULE, MAXWELLS
TRAVELING ELECTROMAGNETIC NEAR FIELD WAVES:
We have a new traveling (near field waving) +/- electrodynamic force if we take into account the current traveling increase and
unavoidable decrease of the source current, which does not make a closed current and makes a delayed propagation experimentally with
the result of an extra-near field wave, e.g., +/-B.

Element dS2, with current dI2, is moving perpendicularly to axes S2 and S1 with velocity
V2, as shown above in Fig. 3. According to Amperes Cardinal Law in case 3, Eq.(6),
forces, such as F12 and F12, are created between the current element dI 2 and the charge
q1 on the left of footage F on the axis S1. Because the angle of r12 with V2 is always acute,
or < 900 degrees, the sign of the Ampere force F12 is always -; the Force F12 and r21 have
opposite signs.
Therefore, forces F21 and F12 are always attracted to each other (see Fig. 3).
Similarly, the angle between r21 and V2, is always obtuse, or > 900 degrees. The sign of
Ampere force F12 is always +; the force F12 and r12 have the same sign.
17

Therefore, forces F12 and F21 are always repulsive against each other (see Fig. 3).
When F12 and F12 are analyzed by components, one along axis S 1 and one perpendicular
to the same axis S1, the first components along S1 provide the same expected induction
in the same direction on axis S1.
The second components, perpendicular to axis S1, are restricted to be inert by the
boundary of the axis S1, providing only the expected Hall effects.
The key here was the non-perpendicular forces F21 and F21 on S1 with a component
along S1, despite the fact that the Lorentz force is always perpendicular to any parallel S 2
axis, particularly to S1.
IN CONTRAST, FOR LORENTZS LAW, THE PERPENDICULAR FORCES HAVE NO COMPONENTS ALONG
S1.

Generally and briefly, because F21 =- F12, according to Amperes Cardinal Law, those two
forces have opposite signs on S1 and S2, respectively. Thus, the Lenz rule for induction is
predicted.
Therefore, the expected empirical induction of dS 1 is predicted by the moving dS2,
with the Lenz rule, and all experimental aspects of induction are applicable, in
accordance to Amperes Cardinal Law.
The same holds for dS1 approaching dS2; see above Eq. (5), case 2.
This is Einsteins11 empirical remark for assuming relativity and equivalence for moving
dS1 or dS2 and, more specifically, for moving only one of the two with respect to the other.
However, the truth of this fact is that this remark results, theoretically, from an absolute
non-relativistic Law.
NOTICE: The approach is equivalent: the two currents are motionless and stationary but
increase or decrease, respectively. Direct application of the authors proper version of
this case confirms the above. It remains to be said that the total forces exerted on

s1 and

s2 are equal and opposite (which implies the total Lenz rule for them) because the
Action-Reaction Principle is preserved along both axes by Amperes Force Law (not,
however, for the incorrectly accepted Lorentz12 Law of Relativity Theory). Therefore, with
the currents increased, they are inversely proportional to the length on which they are
distributed, a rule known for transformers (see below, case C, Eq. (10)).

VI. MOVING OR STATIC AXES, BACK EMF,

SELF-INDUCTION PREDICTED BY AMPERES
LAW, MOTIONLESS INDUCTION
Consider the two following schematics of configurations for motion induction and
18

AC induction:

Fig. 4a. The induced current on S1, see above, induces back a current on S2 that adds to the current I2 such that
the total current increases. In this way, the impedence of S 2 decreases. The larger current conserves energy
between the primary and secondary axes, according to Amperes Cardinal Law, a fact we know from home and
industry transformers.

Fig. 4b.

A configuration for AC current induction and detection on a motionless axis.

Suppose the two axes are now static but that axis S 2 carries an AC current.
As we have explained in the introduction, due to the finite speed of propagation,
AC changes travel lso with the finite speed of the current and do not occur
simultaneously throughout the circuit.
Therefore, this changing current is not a closed circuit, and the law of Lorentz,
predicting a perpendicular force on axis S1, is not equivalent to the Ampere force
for it. The Ampere force is thus the same as in the analysis of Fig. 3.
he key understanding is that either the increase/decrease of dI 3, produced
by AC or by a moving axis, makes no difference in Ampere forces analysis in
Fig. 3.
By the same application of Amperes Cardinal Law, Eq. (5b), Case 2, the induced
current I1 on the static S1 axis acts on axis S2, with S2 moving towards S1, producing
19

a back EMF induction on S2, added to the original current I2 by the

SIMULTANEOUSLY induced current on S1, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4. In this way,
the impedance of S2 is decreased, and the power consumption of S2 from the
source S increases, contributing to energy conservation.
Compare these facts with the behavior of houses and industrial transformers. See
below and immediate remark, case 2.
Special consideration: When the distance between the two axes, S 1 and S2,
becomes zero and the diameter of the single axis formed is zero, the back voltage,
or as it called in the literature, EMF, becomes too large, and the back current will
neutralize the initial current increase I2. Then, we may say, from point to point of the
formed zero-diameter axis, the exercised back force, according to Amperes
Cardinal Law, is maximized and the coupling of the two axes is maximized, giving
the largest Ampere forces for each pair of points of the formed zero-diameter axis.
Then, only constant DC could flow in the zero-diameter formed axis, according to
Amperes cardinal law, having infinite impedance, which is correct and is as
classically expected.
If the formed axis would have a finite diameter, then its self-induction and

impedance would be finite, which is experimentally known to be correct and is

also correct according to Amperes Cardinal Law.

VII. THE HOME OR INDUSTRIAL

TRANSFORMERS LAW OF INDUCTION OF AC

20

Fig. 5. A modern transformer, which did not exist at the time of Maxwell.

First, a note about free current and the induced or bound current in a bulk material and the
total current J.
The electric current that arises in the simplest conductor situations is classified as "free current.
In contrast, "bound current" arises in the context of bulk materials that can be magnetized and/or
polarized, as shown in the black material in the above Fig. 5. (All materials can produce magnetization
to some extent.)
When a material is magnetized (for example, by passing around a current), the electrons remain bound
to their respective atoms but behave as if they were orbiting the nucleus in a particular direction
because of the action of Ampere forces, creating a microscopic current. When the currents from all of
these atoms are put together, they create the same effect as a macroscopic current, circulating
perpetually around the magnetized object. This magnetization current JM is one contribution to "bound
current".
A similar contribution to bound current is the bound charge. When an electric field is applied, the
positive and negative bound charges can separate over atomic distances in polarizable materials, and
when the bound charges move, the polarization changes and creates another contribution to the "bound
current", the polarization current JP. The total current density J0,due to free and bound charges, is then:

J0 = J F + J M + J P

(9)

where JF
is the "free" or "conduction" current density, and J0 >> JF, i.e., J0 is much bigger than JF. Microscopic
currents are fundamentally the same as macroscopic currents.

The primary coil: Now, consider a conductor wound around a ferromagnetic material, as in the
iron core of a house or industry transformer.
(NOTE FOR THE FOLOWING NOTATION: The index effect. signifies the effective value of the quantity,
and J instead of the usual I signifies the current via a winding that may be totally or partially induced).
When we try to pass a current

J1effec. through the primary winding,

a back EMF prevents it via the

induced current J0effec. in the bulk core of the transformer, which is too close to the conductor, provided
21

J0effec., the core effective current, is not saturated to its possible maximum.
The secondary coil: If we now wound a second conductor around the ferromagnetic material,
the induced current J0effec. will act on the second conductor, inducing a second current J2effec..
The radius of the two windings does not matter; if their radius increases, so does the total length of its
winding, which is proportional to r2. This decreases the force of Amperes Cardinal Law of the interaction
involving J0effec.. Thus, the winding radius r does not matter. See also the Ampere circuital law of 1826.
Thus, the two interactions involving J0effec. produce the currents J1effec. and J2effec. on two windings
each. According to Ampere, the total force on each conductor will be equal to n # of turns on the first
winding and m # of turns on the second winding, independent of their radius r (see above). We have
the same number of individual forces and therefore the same total force on each winding; forces
are independent of each radius winding. Therefore, each turn matters and the total number of turns
counts. See also the AMPERE CIRCUITAL LAW OF 1826.
The current elements dI1 and dI2 on each winding 1 and 2 are connected in series with each next dI 1
and dI2 current on each winding 1 and 2, respectively. The same currents in series on each winding do
not add themselves! Rather, their action on the bulk core of the transformer is added.
Therefore, the total force on the total number of charges, represented by J0effec. (created reciprocally
by the previously moving charges of the secondary winding) and by which the stationary charges
simultaneously move on each winding, constitute two different currents that are proportional to m and

n, respectively, or J1effec= proportional to m and J2effec = proportional to

J1effec

m,

or

J2effec
.
Therefore, the two currents J1effec. and J2effec., induced by
ratio

n,

J0effec., are distributed proportionally to the

J1effec./J2effec. = m/n of secondary to primary turns or

J2effec./J21effec. = n/m

(10)

The n/m ratio is also the voltage ratio for the voltages also connected in series on each winding; on the
contrary, do add, independently, the radius r of each turn.
Therefore, as shown in Fig. 6: total V1effec= proportional to

n and total V

2effec

= proportional to

m,

or

total V1effec
, total V2effec
, therefore:
total V1effec /total V2effec = J2effec /J1effec.= n/m,
From Eq. (11), we have:
totalV1effec.J1effec = totalV2effec.J2effec,
which stands for the power of each winding of the transformer,
and from this:
totalV1effec.J1effec.t =totalV2effec.J2effec.t, or
E1=E2,

(11)
(12)

(13)

That is, The energy of the first winding or the so called primary winding equals the transfer energy to
the second or the so called secondary winding.
This is the first time that Amperes Cardinal Law proves the principle of conservation of energy for the
home and industrial transformers.
Nevertheless, the Ampere law does not always do this.

22

Fig. 6. An electronic diagram of a transformer, with the primary coil connected to an AC source and the secondary coil
connected to a consumption load. The two parallel lines between the primary and secondary coils represent the bulk material
(in Fig. 5, the black material). The two coils above represent the case of the S 1 and S2 axes, coupled too closely (distance d
between them, effectively, = 0), via the intervention of J (Fig. 3); also see the last paragraph of section VII.

In the case of Lorentzs law, a violation3 of the principle of conservation of momentum

and angular momentum occurs2,3 theoretically and in principle and causes a nonexistent situation in real nature: self-propulsion and self-rotation 2,3. Thus, the relativistic
Lorentz law disagrees with everyday reality.
We can say that the Empirical Lenz Rule is proven automatically as a consequence of
the inherent respect of the Action-Reaction principle by Amperes Law (Fig. 3).
Those are all of the known aspects and details of induction, proven here, by the Cardinal
Law of Ampere of Electromotive Forces only, that explain why a DC current, which is not
an isolated current but is actually a closed current, exerts perpendicular forces
everywhere on the S1 circuit, which has no components along S1. Therefore, no
electromotive force is caused along axis S1. Therefore, no induction is correctly predicted
for DC on S1, according to Amperes cardinal law. This is derived for the first time here.
Additionally, not taking into account the fictitious, and by using trial and error without the
physical sense rule of cutting the flux
=

through an area s, by a magnetic field B:

B.ds, all over s,

(14)

and the induced total potential E in the perimeter of s, is:

E=-

(15)

The above Eq. (15) contradicts dramatically the empirically foundings of Faraday in
some cases, according to Feynman et Al.14
But by actually taken into account Ampere forces and their mathematical modifications
by the Authors, it is straight and trivial to explain these otherwise paradoxical for Eq.
(15), cases 17-2, 17-3, 17-4 referred explicitly by the Nobel Laureate Feynman who with
his co-authors of the three volume world famous book The Feynman Lectures on
Physics14 (2013), seem not to know the Ampere force.

23

An AC current is not a naturally closed current, contrary to what James Clark Maxwell
believed: Every current is closed and is the same everywhere in a circuit; see Fig. 1
and Ref. 3. This is incorrect because of the finite propagation speed of the AC currents
increase or decrease and was not taken into account by the assumed father of
electromagnetism, Maxwell, whose experience was principally with battery currents
during his time. Therefore, AC behaves differently in terms of induction in contrast to
DCs null effect.
Maxwell took for granted his 4 equations + Lorentzs force law, as 5 electromagnetic
equations and other empirical laws and rules to deduce electromagnetism, as the five
axioms-equations and the various other rules and laws of electromagnetism which are
not stated among the founding principles.
Instead of taking one axiom, that is the Cardinal Law of Ampere, with the authors
mathematically proven modifications, an appropriately correct law for isolated currents,
e.g., in moving charged elementary particles in accelerators such as the CERN
accelerator in Europe, unfortunately, the Cardinal Law is not used, and various new
particles are predicted, with their purpose in nature not understood and appearing to be
phenomenological and redundant, e.g., see Ref.15.
Moreover, the equations of Maxwell, including the magnetic field for a non-closed
current, such as the field B of an isolated moving single electron or elementary charged
particle, makes no sense. Thus, the equations of Maxwell, in such cases, make no sense
involving a nonsense concept of the B field. For this field B, which does not make sense
for non-closed currents, (for example, in moving individual elementary particles, an
interaction has to be imagined to take place with non-existing virtual photons and virtual
particles) with real momentum and correcting forces, a hypothesis made by the Nobel
laureate Feynman7,8,9,

FIG. 7. Feynmans Diagrams with virtual photons or Ampere Electrodynamic forces?

Virtual photons repel two similarly charged and moving elementary particles (for example, electrons), and a
virtual hypothesis is not needed. In all such cases forces really exist and repel by Ampere Cardinal law.

24

Fig. 8. The same Ampere forces as shown in a typical crooks tube that pushes the streaming charges farther out of their
electric field and apparently it does not control their motion. The charges are apparently self-propelled by Ampere
forces, i.e., charges from the cathode in a strait beam passing the cross (Ref. 16), and are the principle of todays CRT
(cathode ray tubes) for home televisions tubes, laboratory oscilloscopes CRT tubes, Radar screens, Tetrod radio tubes, etc.,
with heated cathodes.

who wanted to retain the inappropriate (for this case), classical electromagnetism as
much as possible with the corresponding Lorentz Law instead of replacing Maxwells
equations by the appropriate Ampere electrodynamics with new forces .
As a result, for all scales of the Universe, micro, macro and mega cosmos, Lorentzs law
violates the never-failing principle of conservation of momentum:
1. Micro-Cosmos.
Consider a pair of charged elementary particles, say electrons, moving alone but
arbitrarily in a narrow vicinity; the assumed Lorentz forces are perpendicular to the
arbitrary velocities of the two particles, and the gained momentum is also arbitrary on
each particle. Thus, violation of the conservation of their total momentum will occur.
2. The same holds for Macro-Cosmos.
Consider a pair of charged billiard balls moving similarly arbitrarily in a narrow vicinity of
the billiard table. Similarly, their individual Lorentz forces will also be arbitrary. Thus, the
arbitrary forces will violate the billiard total momentum instead of conserving it.
3. Similarly for Mega-Cosmos.
Consider a pair of charged asteroids moving arbitrarily in the same vicinity of space.
Similarly, a violation of momentum will occur according to Lorentzs law.
In case 1, for isolated elementary charged particles, including the electrons that we used
as an example, Maxwells electromagnetism is replaced by other theories, for example,
25

quantum electrodynamics. Correspondingly, for cases 1 and 2 other similar theories

should be invented to replace Lorentzs law and the generally ill B field.
Quantum electrodynamics, we may say, was not invented by Feynman 8 for only the
needs of quantum theory, but also or only, for the needs of the deficiency of Lorentzs
Law.
Amperes Cardinal Law, preserving action and reaction, HAS NO SUCH DEFICIENCY
and never violates the principle of conservation of momentum in all three scales of the
Universe.
Maxwell, with the principal experience of batteries currents during his time prior to
Teslas AC, was blinded with incorrect facts; he believed that there are non-isolated
currents, e.g., all currents, such as that of a battery DC current are closed currents and
that a current always has the same magnitude in a circuit, a fact that we all see now is
generally incorrect in all cases other than battery currents!

VIII. ELECTRODYNAMIC +/- FORCE NEAR FIELD WAVES

Because a change, increase/decrease, of any current takes time to propagate to each
point of a conductor and surrounding space,
its reaction anywhere produces delayed propagating /-electrodynamic force near
field waves.
We use the term near field because it is true that this delayed reaction diminishes 1/r 2
as a normal wave does within distances comparable to the dimensions of the S axis, or
the antenna in this case.
In our Ampere law, we make no use of the postulated Maxwells electromagnetic
equations, which can directly derive electromagnetic near field waves. Maxwells
electromagnetic waves are equivalent to these postulates, without a major proof.
The delayed propagation of the increase/decrease, according to Ampere, constitutes a
new traveling-propagating (near field waving) +/-electrodynamic force, which makes a
travelling interaction or a classical electromagnetic near field wave, which we usually
speak of.
If we take into account a traveling-propagating increase/decrease of the source current,
which will not make a closed current, this increase/decrease will result in a traveling or
better than a near field wave, which makes a propagating +/- electrodynamic force wave,
as predicted by Amperes Force Law. See Figs. 2 and 3 above.
Unipolar induction 4,510 is a yet unsolved problem. It is an obvious and trivial problem in
the present premises, and it will probably be presented in another paper.

IX. CONCLUSION
The Non-Relativistic Law of 1821, prior to the Special Relativity Theory of Amperes
Cardinal Law, theoretically predicts empirical laws of induction and other facts in contrast
26

to the Relativistic Law of Lorentz. The known Relativistic Transformations were made by
Lorentz, and the Lorentz Transformations were and are in the core of the Special
Relativity Theory of Einstein. This Law of Ampere, without the use of the general
magnetic field (by the way, the magnetic field of individual moving charged bodies, even
elementary particles, makes no physical sense), and it (the law of Ampere) provides
more realistic predictions.
However, predictions, such as induction, prove that Amperes Cardinal Law is superior
and generally different than the generally incorrect force law of Lorentz of Maxwells
electromagnetism. Thus, the battle between Amperes electrodynamics and Maxwells
electromagnetism favors Ampere, especially taking into account that this law was hidden
after Einsteins publications of Special Relativity of 1905 and taking into account that this
has been a forgotten Law since then, more than a century later, in 2014.
Amperes electrodynamic force is indeed unknown and hidden; however, it should be
considered one of the fundamental forces of the Cosmos, along with the gravitational,
weak, and nuclear forces, especially after predicting the virtual Feynman diagrams, Fig.
7.
Amperes force is equivalent to the force of Lorentz only in special cases of closed DC
circuits. In general, Lorentzs force should really be considered incorrect and redundant
in contrast to that of Amperes force, despite what Maxwell stated.
Additionally, this superior, non-relativistic law of Ampere proves the hypothetical
foundations of the Theory of Relativity are wishful and are actually incorrect.
Further summarizing, we make, telegraphically, a list of the following 10 main points:
1. Here, induction is studied only by the appropriate non-relativistic forces on each
standing/moving charge by all other standing/moving charges and not by any magnetic
field or mysterious magnetic flux, Eq. (14). The Theory of Relativity is, thus, defected.
2. The cardinal law of Ampere and Ampere Electrodynamics are not falsified in a single
known case.
3. The Ampere forces make no use of magnetic fields. The magnetic field of separate
charged moving bodies makes no sense (e.g., for the case of elementary charged
particles, etc.).
4. The relativistic law of Lorentz theoretically violates the principle of conservation of
momentum and angular momentum, but in reality, the law does not apply, and no
violation occurs. See Ref. 3.
5. Generally, the two laws, Amperes and Lorentzs laws, are theoretically and
experimentally different.
6. The two laws are identical only for DC currents and motionless circuits with respect to
their local gravitational field in cases of no induction, defecting the Theory Relativity,
which claims all inertial reference frames are equivalent and appropriate for all Physical
laws.
27

7. The cases where the two laws are different are also the cases where the Lorentz law
is incorrect.
8. The force of Ampere seems to be one among the unconsidered fundamental forces of
Nature: Amperes electrodynamic force instead of Maxwells electromagnetic force, the
gravitational force, the weak force, and the nuclear or strong force.
9. The electrodynamic and gravitational fields seem to be related; the velocities of the
validity of Amperes law are the velocities with respect to the local gravitational field, for
example, Earths gravitational field, a spaceships gravitational field, etc.
10. The unification of Maxwell electromagnetism with the weak force by Carlo Rubia
in the seventies, the so-called electroweak force, could be associated with Amperes
Cardinal Law instead.
It is normally expected (as a corollary of the unification) to take part in the phenomena
governed by the weak force (nucleus transmutation): See P. T. Pappas, Electrically
Induced Nuclear Fusion, (1998). Ref. 17 and 18.

Appendix
For the demanding or electrically knowledgeable and experienced reader.
Assume a case in which a DC current I1 already exists before the induced current
on axis S1. Then, the Cardinal Force of Ampere, which is equivalent now to the
Force Law of Lorentz, applies and a force is exerted between the currents, the
closed DC current I1 and AC current I2. However, this force is always perpendicular
to these currents (because of the equivalency of Lorentzs Law in this case), and
thus, this force is constrained by each axis.
Therefore, this force does not affect the induced potential and current but only
causes a separate Hall Effect on axis S2.
1

J. M. Ampere, French Academy of Science, (1821-1826),

R .A. R. Tricker, Early Electrodynamics, Pergamon Press, p. 49 and p. 55, (1965).
2
J. C. Maxwell, Maxwells classical book of Electromagnetism, A Treatise On Electricity And Magnetism,
Clarendon Press, (1891), Unabridged third Dover edition, Vol. 2, p.158, Dover Publications, Inc. New York, s.b.n.
486-60637-6, Title of book of 1873: A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, 1873, v. 2, p. 175, (1954) .
P. T. Pappas and T. Vaughan, Phys. Ess. 3, 211 (1990), P. T. Pappas, www.panospappas.gr,
schematics 4A, 4B, (2014).
3

28

F.J. Mller, Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 1, p. 27, (1990).

5
Panofsky, W. & Phillips, M., Classical Electricity And Magnetism, Addison-Wesley, reading,
Ma., sect. 18-6, (1962),
6
F.J. Mller, An Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity Theory, (Unipolar Induction),
http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_113.pdf, (2013).
7
Francisco J. Mller, GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS,
http://home.comcast.net/~adring/muller.htm, (2013)
8
R. P.Feynman, FEYNMAN VIRTUAL PHOTONS, phys. rev. 80, 440457 (1950).

The American Physical Society, virtual

photons,
9

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/pr/v80/i3/p440_1 , (2013)
10
H. H. Ricker iii, Unipolar Induction an Unsolved Problem and Scientific Method,
http://www.k1man.com/rickerunipolar1.pdf, (2013).
11
A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 18:639, (1905).
12
H.A.Lorentz, Huygens Institute Royal Academy of Arts and Science, proceedings 6, P.809,
AMSTERDAM, (1904), allso in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory.
13

T. E. Phipps, Physics Essays 10, 615-627 (1997).

R.P. Feynman et Al. CLASSICAL BOOK The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. II, section
17-2, Fig. 17-2 and 17-3, and section 17-4, Fig. 17-5, (2013) , in the internet:
http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/.
14

Do Elementary Particles Have an

Objective Existence?,
15

Bilha Nissenson,

CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, 23 Nov (2007), http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.3539.

16
THE CROOK TUBE http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_de_Crookes, (2013)
17
P.T. Pappas, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Cold Fusion, I.C.C.F.,
Vancouver Canada, 19-24 April, (1998), p. 460. Also: Journal of New Energy Vol.3, No. 1, (1998).
18
P.T. PAPPAS, BIOLOGICAL NUCLEAR TRANSMUTATION OF Na TO K,
http://www.panospappas.gr/NaOK.htm, (2013).

THE FRENCH ABSTRACT.

29

Rsum : Linduction, ici, nest tudie que par les forces appropries sur chaque charge
immobile / ou en mouvement, par toutes les autres charges tant immobiles / ou en mouvement,
et non par un champ magntique ou flux mystrieux quelconque. Ces forces doivent,
particulirement, tre appelles avec un terme du pass comme ' des forces Electromotrices'.J. C.
Maxwell, le Pre d ' Electromagntisme moderne, qui na principalement eut dexprience quavec
les courants continus dans les batteries, affirm trois thses inexactes :
A. Chaque courant appartient un circuit ferm", et que
B. Chaque courant est tout le mme le long de son circuit
C. La loi de la force d Ampre est quivalente la loi de la force de Lorentz, et donc la loi d
Ampre doit tre considre comme superflue"
Toutes ces trois lois sont lances ainsi jusque nos jours.
Ralisant la vrit actuelle de ces trois cas et en appliquant la loi Cardinal de la force d Ampre,
une Electrodynamique suprieure naquit. Considrez en particulier:
A. Un conducteur statique avec un courant alternatif qui n'est pas un courant DC de la batterie,
ou
B. Un conducteur mobile DC se dplaant perpendiculairement
vec un DC, qui produit un courant secondaire pas-ferm et perpendiculaire au conducteur. En
considerant la loi absolue, non-Relativiste originale et Cardinale Electrodynamique d' Ampre 1 d
autres circuits ferms ou ouverts, la preuve et la prvision de tous les dtails de la loi de l'
induction empirique de Faraday, la rgle empirique de Lentz sest produite pour la premire fois.
Ces lois ont donn la fausse impression la Loi de la Relativit Spciale d'Einstein 11. Ainsi que la
loi Cardinal d Ampre, tant une loi absolue, naturellement non relativiste, une loi de Force
Electromotrice fournit exclusivement la distribution 4,5,6,7 analytique relle effective du potentiel de
l'induction dtermin pour la premire fois.
La loi quivalante de Lorentz suppos tre fausse ne saurait dterminer ce fait!
La Loi d'Ampre et les modifications par les auteurs de cet article conservent toujours le principe
d'action-raction et du momentum , et ils se trouvent en opposition la loi de Lorentz lequel se
trouve en opposition avec la loi de la conservation du momentum et du momentum angulaire,
et cette loi de Lorentz, la loi d' Ampre et ses versions peuvent remplacer.
La loi d' Ampre peut donner prdiction de propagation des ondes Electromagntiques en champ
proche, (voir au bas section C, sous-section nomme VAGUES DE FORCES ELECTRODYNAMIQUES
+/- EN CHAMPS PROCHES ou mieuxOndes de force Electrodynamique , +/- en champ proche,
sans les quations de Maxwell.
Nous utilisons le terme "Electrodynamique" pour le champ magntique d un courant changeant,
n'est pas ce que nous supposons d tre, pour les courants qui sont pas-ferms, tels que toutes
courants changeant rapidement dans le temps.
Pour ces sortes de courants, un changement de courant, ne peut pas avoir lieu instantanment
tous les points d'un circuit, parce qu il faut un peu du temps pour quil se propage, malgr les
considrations de Maxwell. Maxwell son poque, ne connaissait pas les courants alternatifs de
Tesla, mais il connaissait principalement les courants constants continues (DC) des batteries.
Un courant alternatif changeant travers un circuit ne peut pas avoir partout (dans ce circuit) la
mme valeur, cause de la propagation pas instantane de ce courant, voir aussi les expriences
et mesures de Pappas3. Donc les changements de courant ne peuvent pas avoir une propagation
instantane, ce faisant ainsi le courant ne peut tre le mme dans son circuit entier . C est cause
de cela, qu une onde lectrodynamique des interactions peut tre naturellement attendue pour
ces sortes de courants alternatifs et pas pour un courant direct continue, selon la loi non-relativiste
et appele absolue, d Ampre. Sil s agit de courants aletrnatif qui sont des courants
producteurs dondes lectromagntiques en champ proche, ou Sil sagit de courants continue non
producteurs dondes lectromagntiques en champ proche, ceux-ci tant deux diffrentes sortes
30

de courrant avec des rsultats diffrents, mais ils ne font aucune diffrence pour la Loi Relativiste
de Lorentz.
La thorie de la Relativit est sans importance cette thse et les considrations fondamentales
de la Relativit sont dmenties 4,6. L Electrodynamique d Ampre est destine remplacer l'
Electromagntisme de Maxwell avec sa thorie mal conue du champ magntique pour le
dplacement des charges lectriques individuels, des particules lmentaires et des courants
changeants.

THE ENGLISH ABSTRACT

Abstract: In this paper, induction is studied only with the
appropriate forces on each standing/moving charge by all other
31

standing/moving charges and not by any magnetic field or

mysterious flux. These appropriate forces should be called with
the older term electro-motive forces .
.
J. C. Maxwell, the Father of Modern Electromagnetism, who principally
only had experience with DC currents in batteries, claimed three inaccurate
theses:
1. Every current belongs in a closed circuit,
2. Every current is the same all along a circuit,
3. The Ampere force law is equivalent to the Lorentz force law, and
therefore, the Ampere law should be considered redundant, all of which are
propagated today. Realizing the actual truth of those three cases and taking
into account the Ampere Cardinal Force Law, superior electrodynamics
arises. In particular, consider the following:
A. A static conductor with AC, with current that is not DC battery current, or
B. A DC conductor moving perpendicularly, which produces a non-closed
secondary current perpendicular to the conductor. Taking into account
Amperes1 absolute, non-Relativistic, Electrodynamic Cardinal Law on other
closed or open circuits, proof and prediction of all details of Faradays
empirical induction law, the Lentz empirical rule is produced for the first
time. These laws gave the wrong impression to Einstein 11 for the foundations
of Special Relativity. In addition, Amperes absolute-nonrelativistic,
Electromotive Force Law exclusively provides the real analytical distribution
4,5,6,7
of induction potential, which, for the very first time, is determined. The
wrongly assumed equivalent Lorentz Law cannot determine this fact!
Amperes Law and its authors modifications always retain the principle of
action-reaction and momentum; in contrast to violating the conservation of
momentum and angular momentum, the Law of Lorentz cannot replace
Amperes Law.
Amperes law may predict the propagation of electromagnetic near field
waves (see section VIII, ELECTRODYNAMIC +/- FORCE NEAR FIELD WAVES), or better
+/- electrodynamic force near field waves, without Maxwells equations. We
use the term electrodynamic for the magnetic field of a changing current
that is not what we suppose it to be for non-closed currents with quickly
changing currents. For such currents, a current change cannot
instantaneously occur at every point of a circuit, as it takes time to
propagate, despite Maxwells considerations. Maxwell did not know of Teslas
alternating currents during his time; rather, he knew only of batteries with DC
constant currents.
A changing AC current along a circuit cannot have the same value
everywhere because of the finite propagation of the current (see also the
experiments and measurements of Pappas3). Therefore, current changes
32

cannot have instantaneous propagation, making the current vary throughout

its circuit.
Therefore, a + /- electrodynamic near field force interaction wave may
naturally be expected for such AC currents but not for DC currents according
to the absolute-non relativistic law of Ampere.
In both AC producing electromagnetic near field wave currents and DC nonproducing electromagnetic near field currents, DC and AC are different types
of currents with different results; nevertheless, these differences do not
affect the relativistic Lorentz Law.
The theory of relativity is irrelevant to this thesis, and relativitys founding
considerations are proven incorrect 4,6. Ampere electrodynamics is meant to
replace Maxwells electromagnetism, with its ill-conceived theory of magnetic
fields for individual moving charges, elementary particles and changing
currents.

33

KEY WORDS
Ampere, electro-motive, forces, their modifications, induction.

34

FIG. 1. CAPTION

FIG. 1. Two fundamental examples from Modern Radio Engineering, NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME OF MAXWELL.
The above tuned or untuned circuits with the loop and the circle are perfect closed circuits. The current
induced by the right circuit is an arbitrary VHF changing current, and that on the left is a VHF sinusoidal
changing current.
Both currents in the circuits are sometimes zero, +maximum or - minimum.
They are different at every point!
Maxwell was teaching that in a closed circuit, the current should be the same everywhere!
APPARENTLY, MAXWELL COULD NEVER IMAGINE THE REALITY OF THE ABOVE CIRCUITS.

35

FIG. 2. CAPTION
Fig. 2. Configuration of the set up to assist Fig. 3

36

FIG. 3. CAPTION
FIG. 3. AMPERE FORCES WITH AUTHORS MODIFICATIONS PREDICT FARADAYS INDUCTION, LENZS RULE, MAXWELLS
TRAVELING ELECTROMAGNETIC NEAR FIELD WAVES:
We have a new traveling (near field waving) +/- electrodynamic force if we take into account the current traveling increase and
unavoidable decrease of the source current, which does not make a closed current and makes a delayed propagation experimentally with
the result of an extra-near field wave, e.g., +/-B.

FIG. 4a. CAPTION

37

Fig. 4a. The induced current on S1, see above, induces back a current on S2 that adds to the current I2 such that
the total current increases. In this way, the impedence of S 2 decreases. The larger current conserves energy
between the primary and secondary axes, according to Amperes Cardinal Law, a fact we know from home and
industry transformers.

Fig. 4b. CAPTION

Fig. 4b.

A configuration for AC current induction and detection on a motionless axis.

38

Fig. 5. CAPTION
Fig. 5. A modern transformer, which did not exist at the time of Maxwell.

39

FIG. 6. CAPTION
Fig. 6. An electronic diagram of a transformer, with the primary coil connected to an AC source and the secondary coil
connected to a consumption load. The two parallel lines between the primary and secondary coils represent the bulk material
(in Fig. 5, the black material). The two coils above represent the case of the S 1 and S2 axes, coupled too closely (distance d
between them, effectively, = 0), via the intervention of J (Fig. 3); also see the last paragraph of section VII.

40

FIG. 7. CAPTION
FIG. 7. Feynmans Diagrams or Ampere Electrodynamics?
Virtual photons repel two similarly charged and moving elementary particles (for example, electrons), and a
virtual hypothesis is not needed. In all such cases forces really exist and repel by Ampere Cardinal law.

41

FIG. 8. CAPTION
Fig. 8. The same Ampere forces as shown in a typical crooks tube that pushes the streaming charges farther out of their
electric field and apparently it does not control their motion. The charges are apparently self-propelled by Ampere
forces, i.e., charges from the cathode in a strait beam passing the cross (Ref. 16), and are the principle of todays CRT
(cathode ray tubes) for home televisions tubes, laboratory oscilloscopes CRT tubes, Radar screens, Tetrod radio tubes, etc.,
with heated cathodes.

42

43