Electromagnetic Radiation Power contains a 3D volume of energy

A worthwhile (informative) calculation is to determine the energy in a single 50 Hz (or 60 Hz) photon, and then compute how many there are per watt of power (photons per second). ["quite a few"].

Then compute the wavelength; the photon is (depending on arguments) at least a full wavelength to complete the EH field rotation ["Massive"].

Then compute the electron (charge) motion in copper at 50Hz at fusing levels and compare that to the size of the atomic spacing. (hence all current flow is displacement current between atoms?)

Ultimately it shows that most of the 'physics' (Maxwell etc.) doesn't really join up, and that in each engineering area, one can make nice simplifying assumptions that horrify others with slightly different task. Try looking up the ELF (extra low frequency) communication stuff that communicates/d with Submarines during the cold war for the EM fields at 10-45Hz.

The EMI/RFI/EMC folks have similar problems (0V and Earth are not the same!).

For a fun item, look up the [compact] Hately antennae which is 'transmit only' for an area where established opinion was not helpful.

Thanks for all the replies.  Maxwell's laws are for maths guru's really, but for practical engineers and physicists it is the Maxwell corkscrew rule that should be prioritised as this demonstrates that AC magnet flux rotates a field at right angles to the current flow.

Most people now accept that electron particles cannot move at the speed of light only the massless flux- current field that contains the spinning area of magnoflux inertia can move at light speed if attracted across space by a voltage or inside the spare holes of a conductor here on planet earth.

Revising my blog to try and highlight the priority of Maxwell;s corkscrew rule and Faraday's 3 finger laws.   

Please be a bit more rigorous ! There is enough misinformation about electromagnetism out there without adding to it.
James Clerk Maxwell (of 1865 fame *) did not as far as I know have a 'corkscrew' rule, except perhaps one for opening wine bottles at home that has not been published in the scientific press...

To be fair his initial equations were written in component form (dx dy dz) it was Oliver Heaviside in 1880 who reformatted those 20 odd equations  into today's easier to teach and remember vector notation.

The two flavours of the three finger mnemonic occasionally referred to  as the corkscrew rule, is usually associated with John Ambrose Fleming and his text book  ** (All together now "motors left and gener-righters".. ) 

Faraday brought us experimental evidence of induction.
regards

Mike.
Light reading.

* "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field," JC maxwell 1865
** Magnets and Electric Currents, JA Fleming published in 1902

Hi Mike,

Look up Wiki; who think Fleming but also mentions Ampere but I think it used to be Lenz corkscrew rule that was taught 60 years ago..

Anyway, the important thing is to understand that all Radiant power is Electromagnetic and that the current induces a flux at right angles which rotates therefore producing a spinning area of magnoflux 2D inertia.  AC domestic power uses 50 cycles per second generators. But because of the corkscrew ruler we must synchronise the generators individually.  Applying a DC voltage at right angles then produces 3D power energy

99.99% of our planets energy comes from our star the sun and all of it is the form of radiant energy; not conductive, convective or gravitational energy.

Our planet is being kept warm by the massless spinning magnoflux2D inertia field that can travel through space without loss if attracted forward by a DC voltage, to be absorbed by matter as it has a voltage between its negative shell and inner protons to become 3D magnoflux heat energy keeping the planet warm.

Heinrich Lenz, in Annalen der Physik in 1834 - writing almost half a century before the time of Maxwell and Herz remember, and at a point when the concept of a  'field' was not really a thing used in the modern sense - wrote a short piece translating into german and then building on Faraday's work in the UK that was then itself pretty new. 
Lenz's essential addition was the observation that energy is conserved, so any currents induced are in the direction that create magnetic forces that oppose those that created it.
(So sadly no perpetual motion machines with motors driving generators, the torque needed to spin the generator  takes the same energy as the electricity you generate plus a bit extra for  losses - plenty of folk on you tube don't seem to get that right even almost 100 years later.)
In short that we put mechanical energy into a generator and get it out of a motor.. 
The hand rules only work once you have an agreed  concept of directions of field lines in space, and that is probably mostly a Heavvside thing - as shown, the  likes of Faraday and Lenz were discussing current flow, forces and magnetic poles, without reference to fields, or for that matter electrons.

Mike

Thanks Mike,

Yes, you are probably correct corkscrew rule came later 

My post is really wanting confirmation that energy must be contained inside a volume and cannot be just an area of spinning 2D magnoflux momentum.  After all, if you applied heat to an area it would go from zero to infinity immediately.  

Do you agree.

Indeed - one can talk about power flowing through an area, much as one can talk about sunlight coming through a window, at so many watts per square metre, but energy is power times time. (or force times distance). I'm still not especially happy with your nomenclature, but any area, spinning or not, traps flux, not energy. Be aware however that a rotation is often represented as a vector pointing along the axis of rotation - the axle if you like. Indeed the vector sum  of such angular momentum vectors in such a representation is as far as I know the only neat way to describe quantitatively (i.e. mathematically accurately) the behaviour of gyroscopes in rotating frames of reference. 

it is important not to confuse this angular momentum vector, with the Poynting vector, the direction of motion of a plane wave, or a volume of unit energy.

Also important is that power flux through an area is only actually realized, when some, or all, of it is actually intercepted. Fields don't interact with each other ;-) They just describe how particles would behave at any point in space if put there. (and even then only if that test particle does not significantly perturb the field  being measured)

Mike

Indeed - one can talk about power flowing through an area, much as one can talk about sunlight coming through a window, at so many watts per square metre, but energy is power times time. (or force times distance). I'm still not especially happy with your nomenclature, but any area, spinning or not, traps flux, not energy. Be aware however that a rotation is often represented as a vector pointing along the axis of rotation - the axle if you like. Indeed the vector sum  of such angular momentum vectors in such a representation is as far as I know the only neat way to describe quantitatively (i.e. mathematically accurately) the behaviour of gyroscopes in rotating frames of reference. 

it is important not to confuse this angular momentum vector, with the Poynting vector, the direction of motion of a plane wave, or a volume of unit energy.

Also important is that power flux through an area is only actually realized, when some, or all, of it is actually intercepted. Fields don't interact with each other ;-) They just describe how particles would behave at any point in space if put there. (and even then only if that test particle does not significantly perturb the field  being measured)

Mike

mapj1 said:

Fields don't interact with each other ;-)

Which (in my frame of reference) is because we assume 'superposition', equivalently LTI (Linear Time Invariant) systems, and thus energy conservation (among other conserved phenomena) falls out of that maths.

All of which carries a [non-existent in a physical sense?] Cartesian reference frame with it, upon which to place our [local] calculations.

Unfortunately Maxwell then made a hash of those assumptions, ending up with awkward quaternions (Art 618,619, 1873) leading Einstein to ... relativity (where time is not independent)

--

There's still a lot we don't 'know' and have too many scientific opinions on, and likewise engineering simplifications. E.g. We don't know how 'inertia' (in the spinning gyroscope in outer space context) works, nor photons (are they waves, or particles; do they only interact with 'atomic structure' and are thus a reflection of said structure interaction?). 

We have 'mathematics' [our choice of particular flavours] to blame for a lot of the confusions. Our test equipment can also frame the results.

Hately's antennae was an attempt to create a Poynting vector.