Science topic

# Electrodynamics - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Electrodynamics, and find Electrodynamics experts.

Questions related to Electrodynamics

Apropos the Meissner Effect : how is a totally still magnetic field expelled from the interior of a superconducting body, when it is cooled below the transition temperature? From whence do the supercurrent elements obtain their impulse ; how can they suddenly become screening currents, without a cause?

Conversely, it is quite understandable that bringing a superconducting body into a magnetic field-- in this case the supercurrent elements obtain their impulse from a changing magnetic field, via the Lenz-Faraday Law. But in the above case, the magnetic field is absolutely still, and so cannot possibly provide the mechanism to set up surface screening currents.

Apropos the Meissner Effect : how is a totally still magnetic field expelled from the interior of a superconducting body, when it is cooled below the transition temperature? From whence do the supercurrent elements obtain their impulse ; how can they suddenly become screening currents, without a cause?

Conversely, it is quite understandable that bringing a superconducting body into a magnetic field-- in this case the supercurrent elements obtain their impulse from a changing magnetic field, via the Lenz-Faraday Law. But in the above case, the magnetic field is absolutely still, and so cannot possibly provide the mechanism to set up surface screening currents.

Does "quadrupole" (Quadrupole-dipole), related to "Electrodynamic mechanism in SERS (in the case of, either noble metal nanoparticles or semiconducting nanoparticles)

Which protocols can be used for transformation of anaerobic bacteria from Azoarcus genus? So far I tried chemical transformation with CaCl2 buffer and electrotransformation with MOPS, but they didn't work. Any suggestions, tips & tricks?

In the paper of Vladimir Onoochin

after analyzing the original works of Lorentz and Einstein:

"The Lorentz transformations of coordinates in expressions for electromagnetic fields defined in one inertial frame do not give Lorentz-transformed expressions for these fields in another inertial frame"

It is quite peculiar and tricky: considering (1)

**E**,**B**-->**E',B',**as the experimentally verified transformation of the fields, by looking at it component by component, one is brought to believe that the fields underwent a Lorentz Transformation themselves.It becomes quite obvious to think that also space and time should follow such transformations.

On the other hand, the transformation of coordinates

**X**, t -->**X'**, t' which allows (1) to occur, does not have the form of an LT. By applying the LT to the coordinates, the final form of the fields is not the right one.He concludes: " ‘relativistic invariance’ of the Maxwell equations is caused – not by the corresponding transformation of coordinates – but by their Galilean transformations (8) and change in scales of x, y, z, t, "

The invariance of Maxwell equations is indeed guaranteed by Inertial transformations which keep the simultaneity invariant, not by Lorentz Transformations which keep the speed of light as an invariant.

The received wisdom is that quantum mechanics describes why the electron does not penetrate the proton. I find this statement unsatisfying as its is merely a description of an observation at best, with no explanation of physics, electrodynamics, kinetics or information of any kind. Has anyone ever tried using Maxwell?

If anybody is dealing with Electro slag remelting, please explain.

i study about electrodynamic tether system

i don't calculate current-voltage equation (OML Theory)

i understand how to calculate boundary conditions but i don't know how to intagrate equation directly

please give me some solution

Hi, I have written a code for solving the Helmholtz-Maxwell electromagnetic equation using finite difference time domain (FDTD) method. There is not much material available online for this equation. All the algorithms available online or offline are based on Yee's leap frog method.

I have followed the book Computational electrodynamics by Taflov and a PDF by Prof. John S that is available online. Now when I follow Yee's grid then TFSF work very well but when I try to implement it on my code then it doesn't work at all. I'm following the same method to suppress the leftward traveling wave as discussed in these sources albeit with slight modification.

If someone has done it before and can help me on this then it would be of great help.

I do not have anything to test but if you can point me in the right direction? Looking for what is the relative permittivity for the Felt fabric?

The refractive index is obtained owing to classical electrodynamics. Is there any way to know how much momentum the electron gains when light incident on a dielectric material? How does the momentum of the electron depend on the refractive index ?

For those that have the seventh printing of Goldstein's "Classical Mechanics" so I don't have to write any equations here. The Lagrangian for electromagnetic fields (expressed in terms of scalar and vector potentials) for a given charge density and current density that creates the fields is the spatial volume integral of the Lagrangian density listed in Goldstein's book as Eq. (11-65) (page 366 in my edition of the book). Goldstein then considers the case (page 369 in my edition of the book) in which the charges and currents are carried by point charges. The charge density (for example) is taken to be a Dirac delta function of the spatial coordinates. This is utilized in the evaluation of one of the integrals used to construct the Lagrangian. This integral is the spatial volume integral of charge density multiplied by the scalar potential. What is giving me trouble is as follows.

In the discussion below, a "particle" refers to an object that is small in some sense but has a greater-than-zero size. It becomes a point as a limiting case as the size shrinks to zero. In order for the charge density of a particle, regardless of how small the particle is, to be represented by a delta function in the volume integral of charge density multiplied by potential, it is necessary for the potential to be nearly constant over distances equal to the particle size. This is true (when the particle is sufficiently small) for external potentials evaluated at the location of the particle of interest, where the external potential as seen by the particle of interest is defined to be the potential created by all particles except the particle of interest. However, total potential, which includes the potential created by the particle of interest, is not slowly varying over the dimensions of the particle of interest regardless of how small the particle is. The charge density cannot be represented by a delta function in the integral of charge density times potential, when the potential is total potential, regardless of how small the particle is. If we imagine the particles to be charged marbles (greater than zero size and having finite charge densities) the potential that should be multiplying the charge density in the integral is total potential. As the marble size shrinks to zero the potential is still total potential and the marble charge density cannot be represented by a delta function. Yet textbooks do use this representation, as if the potential is external potential instead of total potential. How do we justify replacing total potential with external potential in this integral?

I won't be surprised if the answers get into the issues of self forces (the forces producing the recoil of a particle from its own emitted electromagnetic radiation). I am happy with using the simple textbook approach and ignoring self forces if some justification can be given for replacing total potential with external potential. But without that justification being given, I don't see how the textbooks reach the conclusions they reach with or without self forces being ignored.

I have a electro fenton system that cathode electrode is graphite and anode is FTO coated with a photocatalyst . when i want to increase current density to upper limit, suddenly deposited layer was being separated uniformly from FTO anode via oxygen releasing from anode surface .

anode surface pre treatment(degreasing with ethanol and functionalization with HNO3) was done before layer deposition and annealing after deposition . would you please help my how can i prevent from separation of deposited layer on anode surface?

A thin, circular disc of radius R is made up of a conducting material. A charge Q is given to it, which spreads on the two surfaces.

Will the surface charge density be uniform? If not, where will it be minimum?

I did a reaction but By changing the concentration of electrolyte leads to different product.

Give an example where the electric field is zero at a point but divergence of the electric field is non zero there?

Hello everyone,

I want to electro polymerize PEDOT:PSS using 0.5 M 3,4-ethylene dioxythiophene (EDOT, Sigma-Aldrich, USA) aqueous solution containing 0.6 wt% of poly(sodium 4-styrene sulfonate)(PSS, Sigma-Aldrich, USA). I found this in a paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep40332).

I found EDOT on the sigma-Aldrich website. But, when I was searching for poly(sodium 4-styrene sulfonate) as mentioned in the paper, I found many results for the search. I don't know which one to choose, and various molecular weights are mentioned. Can someone help me with that?

options

1.Boron doped diamond

2.Titanium dioxide coated with platinum

3. Ruthenium Oxide

4. Iridium Oxide

Some theories of physics

*require*(not merely allow) magnetic monopoles. [See, for example, David J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics, Fourth (Kindle) Edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2017.] But how can a theory that*requires*(not merely allows) magnetic monopoles be consistent with the fact that magnets with circular magnetic fields — and hence with*no*poles (neither a north pole nor a south pole) — exist? Two examples: (i) A horseshoe iron, alnico, or other permanent magnet bent into a circle, with the poles cold-welded together. (Cold welding is possible in a vacuum for surfaces planed very smooth.) (ii) A toroidal-solenoid electromagnet (with or without an enclosed iron core for increased strength). The magnetic field lines in such magnets are circular — and hence with*no*poles — neither a north pole nor a south pole.Respected sir

Now i am working for written review article under the topic of Electro chemical machining process which is most important in UCM. This is my first effort for the preparing review articles so i need procedure for writing review article and

1.what are the ethics must be follow during review article reparation....?

2.source available ways and how to utilize available resources with effective .....

Kindly share your suggestions successfully accomplishing my target....

Greatest Regards

S.Sathishkumar

I design a plant for producing caustic soda and chlorine from electrolysis of brine (salt from desalination plants)

How can i use aspen plus in simulate the electro chemical cell (membrane cell) •??

📷

say, when we take a simple titration of any compound to induce some change and study the change what we can see the change if it is faster change in the optical parameter or change in absorption or energy change or when we do its electro chemical analysis the changed species will be faster response as its electron transfer, what will be faster ? or both the methodologies will be different in kinetics due to different technical aspects and parameters? optical corresponds to the technique spectrophotometric methods . and more elaboratively from which technique we can get better electron transfer kinetics or the accurate degree of minimal observable change.

I setup an electro blotting experiment for overnight wet transfer using Tris glycine based transfer buffer at 20V. Next day , to my surprise there was lots of rusty froth in the tank. Also their was deposition of heavy rust on negative electrode. I've performed several O/N transfers earlier, but this was the first time I observe such reaction. Did any body experienced it ? what could be the possible reasons behind?

Blotting details:

PVDF 0.22 uM membrane

Transfer buffer: Tris Glycine with 10% methanol

I am working on metal removal process simulation. Can anyone help?

Specifically speaking, Wire electro discharge machining, creation of plasma channel in dielectric fluid between two electrodes and removing material from positive electrode through generated spark.

Could anyone recommend a good textbook to study about Green Function in classical electrodynamics? Thank you.

I have tried doing ebsd but it is not giving a lot of un indexed points. So I dont know if the unindexed points are finer alpha titanium or beta titanium. During electro polishing the softer beta phase is getting etched off giving unindexed points on the IPF map .

Relation between electrostatic based problem and time harmonic electrodynamics problem.

water splitting

Graphitic layer

metal

electro catalysis

How can we calculate extinction, scattering and absorption cross section using FDTD?

According to Einstein-Rosen bridge theory, shortcuts in space time where if galaxies or multiverses come close to each other, due to excess increase in electro magnetic waving some fructures like holes or tubes, not to be confused with Black holes, form as shortcut tunnels in space time where the observer can see the destination he will be arriving if he goes into the hole when he looks into the worm hole. Having strength as a theory, somehow the worm holes must be detectable, but they are not. What do Physicists think? Are worm holes detectable?

The Plasma Dispersion effect changes the real as well as the imaginary refractive indices. Although the amount of them are different, there must be some effect of the loss part in modulator response to an RF signal. Are there some articles investigating this effect in high speed electro optic modulators?

My question is caused by one curious fact of the electrodynamics.

It is commonly accepted opinion that the electromagnetic fields can at least formally be decomposed onto the rotational and irrotational components. For the electric field of the classical charge being in arbitrary motion is seems to be obvious, namely, the radiated fields are transverse and therefore the rotational, the bound fields are longitudinal and therefore the irrotational.

But:

1. There is no example of such a decomposition of the E field of the classical charge if its law of motion is known;

2. The analogue of Helmholtz's proof of the theorem isn't extended to the electrodynamics. At least, no proof of this theorem is given in the textbooks.

Regarding p. 1, it is easy to give the counter-example, when the decomposition of the E field is impossible (the attached file).

But what is a reason of the absence of the analogue of Helmholtz's proof of the theorem isn't extended to the electrodynamics?

I suggest that because this theorem belongs to the mathematics, some mathematical obstacles should exist to prevent the extention of the theorem to the electrodynamics. What obstacles?

Dear Sirs,

Everybody knows plane and spherical wave solutions of Maxwell equations, e.g for decaying plane wave E=E0*exp(-kx)*cos(w(t-x/v)). But seems to me they give the unreal situation that the wave amplitude is nonzero at different points of space at given time moment. Could you advise the experiment or natural phenomenon which produces such a wave in nature?

Maybe we have infinte speed of the EM interaction? Do you know any real solution of Maxwel equations which exists only in one space point at the given time moment? Maybe using delta function? Or maybe there is my mistake?

The main question is:

**What is Truth and Proof in Science?**

**What other scientific arguments are needed for the truth in science?**

Actually, the uploaded preprints (see the project

**“Presentation of the scientific evidence for the nullity of the special theory of relativity”**):1.

*One-way measurement of the speed of light - the factual analysis*2.

*Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment - the factual analysis*3.

*Sagnac experiment – the factual analysis*4.

*Michelson-Morley experiment - the factual analysis*not only prove that

**the speed of light is not the same for all frames of reference**, but in the first section is presented**a solution of all the "unexpected" and "inexplicable" results of experiments related to the behavior and measurement of the speed of light and carried out within our local time-spatial region, … and without of paradoxes**.5. In "

*On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies - the factual analysis of the article*" is shown**exactly where and how**the erroneous claim “the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference” is applied and actually rejects with arguments special theory of relativity.6. The preprint "

*On the fundamental tests of the Special theory of relativity*" reveals the essence of all the fundamental tests of SR.What else is necessary for the truth to exist in physics?

Mass is transforming in energy activated by "c" as factor. Should this mean mass is some kind of "electrodynamical" phenomenon, e.g. some highly convoluted field?

Any suggestions on what dielectric material to be used for metamaterial

It seems that the moon is getting farther away from Earth. Yet, storms are getting more violent. Why? Do these ferocious storms (tornadoes, hurricanes, rain-wind-thunder-lightning storms) occur when the moon is closest to Earth?

For HRV analysis I would like to use Kubios Standard. I recorded ECG with BrainVision Recorder and get .eeg files which cannot be importet into Kubios directly, as the Standard version only supports .txt, .dat, .csv and other file formats specific to Poloar Electro, Suunto or Garmin devices.

Right now, my solution was to set Markers for the R spikes using BrainVision Analyzer's "ECG Marker" Solution and then export these Positions in a .csv file. This I can import into Kubios.

Does anybody know of another way to directly import the raw data into Kubios?

Any advice is much appreciated, thank you!

In electrodynamics, it is stated that the magnetic force cannot do work. The explanation of it is simple - magnetic force that acts on the charge is always perpendicular to the charge’s incremental displacements.

But it is obviously that in all electric motors, the magnetic force is responsible for rotation of the armature. So the magnetic force produces work.

I suggest that there is some 'gap' in correct description of the systems where the units move due to magnetic forces. An example is schemes of different magnetic 'perpetuum mobile' and without calculations, it is hard to convince the author that this device cannot give over-unity.

The question: How to describe work of the magnetic force in terms of the microscopic electrodynamics in the correct way?

- We are using the an LCMS system with electro spray ionization (waters’ SQD2). Our signals in a certain method decrease sharply with sequential sample injections due to obstruction of the cone aperture (where charged droplets are drawn to by voltage); once we take out the cone from the instrument, clean it, and pu it back- signals go back up.
- Apart from purer solvents and reduced sample concentration, is there anthing in the tuning of the MS that can better focus the droplets into the cone aperture (cone voltage/gas flow/somthing else) without compromising signal intensity?
- thanks!

Here's the topic: according to

**classical electrodynamics,**accelerated charges radiate (see Larmor formula).However, if we take the

**strong equivalence principle**seriously, a charge in**free fall**does**not**radiate, whereas a charge being**blocked by free fall**(e.g. by being statically put on a table)**doesn't.**Reminder: the

**weak equivalence principle**in simple terms says: all particles follow the same spacetime path in free fall.The

**strong equivalence principle**goes even further to say: whatever your experiment is: you cannot distinguish**locally**between acceleration and gravity ("local" is key here).Therefore in the following gedanken experiment, when you drop an electron from a large height towards earth ground (and when it falls freely) it does not radiate. Whereas, when you put it on your kitchen table, and there it lies, it does radiate. Ergo: as anticipated, classical electrodynamics is only valid in the absence of gravitation! No big news here...

I am pointing this out because:

- I do not see many GTR texts mentioning this gedanken experiment, let alone discussing it thoroughly

- the text by Rindler ("Essential Relativity") delivers an unsatisfactory and superficial discussion, although Rindler is otherwise an excellent text, albeit not for beginners

- it illustrates very strikingly the implications of the strong equivalence principle and deserves a more scrutinous analysis

Does anyone know of any papers calculating the

**radiation power**of charged particles in curved spacetime which are**not in free fall?**Does anyone know of a paper doing a thorough analysis on the

**backreaction**on spacetime by the radiation emitted?Thanks to everyone in advance!

Oliver

Now being transferred to cold regions of my State, i observed that people ( Hotel Industry ) are these days installing DCI technology base Sewage Treatment Plant ( STP) rather than Biological section bases STP. The common statement/advantages i observed ( feedback ) as is that: 1. Easy in operation, 2. Less sludge generation ( Negligible). 3. No much technical staff is required 4. better results in final outlet of STP due to extreme cold whether and sufficient to handle to jerk load rather than maintaining BIo -Mass in both these two problems.

Whereas i personally have less knowledge about DCI technology so i have some doubts that :1. may be some amount of metal we are giving back to environment?? ( as degeneration of electrodes) 2. what will be exact mass balance and electro- chemistry over there in the Reactor??

So if some someone has comparisons or study paper on these two please share.

Anyone having any thoughts on how to get more accurate results?

My results are matching fairly well on low frequencies (4 to 15 hz) , and for finding the resonance frequencies (only 10 % or less different, and should get less with better experimental data later…), however at higher frequencies the plots diverges. I try to find relevant literature and other help online, but there are very limited literature available that are useful.

Attached you can find my experimental FRF. . The setup is a beam with a piezo patch attached to it. An accelerometer attached to the fixed end of the beam measures the base acceleration imposed by an electrodynamic shaker.

In the FRF,

EXP-denotes experimental FRF using Welch’s method (built into MATLAB). The three other graphs represent different ways of applying damping in ANSYS, where the two last (with alfa and beta) are Rayleigh damping coefficients.

Anyone having any experiences or any thoughts on how I can get ANSYS to be more realistic? Or maybe something is just fundementally wrong wrong with my experimental setup.

I am a phD student and since I started, I was using ferrocene carboxylic acid for CV and impedance scans, but now I started to use Ferri ferrocyanide in order to try the redox couple with a new polymer. The problem that I am having at the moment is that I am not be able to get a proper CV shape (as you can see in the Fig 1) in the bare gold. I tried:

1. Different current and potential

2. Checked the holders and connections

3. Use external counter, external reference and external working electrode to check the reaction in the internal reference and counter on chip.

4. Different scan rates,

5. Remove oxygen in the solution.

6. Use different concentration of ferri ferro and PBS.

7. Clean the surface with acid

8. Square wave voltammetry.

After try all this options is happening the same all time but just in the internal working electrode (if I use external one the scans are perfect. Another people in my lab were trying ferri ferrocyanide in the past and looks like they were having the same problem as me and them decided to use another type of ferrocene. But at the moment I think that if with a commercial electrode the solution works (fig 3), it should be the same with the internal electrode on the chips that we use.

When I did Square wave voltammetry, I Could realise that there are appear different peaks when I use the same electrode in different time (fig 4). And each one of the electrodes has different peaks. But what is weird is that each time its different on the same electrode, which means that there is a type of reaction happening on the surface.

Can anyone help me to understand what is happening here? I think that in the surface of the electrode there is ‘’something’’ that can be detected using ferri ferro but not with ferrocene carboxylic acid (because the reaction is mask for the groups OH during the oxidation of carboxylic groups).

I use a concentration of 1.5 mM of ferri ferrocyanide in PBS, but as I wrote before I tried different concentrations (of ferri ferro and PBS) and nothing works with the internal electrode but it works with the external working electrode (so the solution it’s not the problem in my opinion). Also I was reading about electro oxidation of methanol or ethanol or some surface with wax layer and the behaviour is a little bit similar, but I am not an expert on this…

Thanks in advance for your time and I hope get help on this.

Regards

I'm looking for software (ideally free to use) which can perform fragment orbital DFT (FODFT) for calculating diabetic electronic coupling matrix elements (electro transfer integrals)? I'm currently using the ADF package but for the molecules I'm interested in it appears to be quite inefficient due to the use of Slater type orbitals.

I am working on the preparation of graphene using electro-exfoliation of graphite. But I do not have RAMAN, SEM, or TEM. But I do have a spectrofluorometer in the lab I work in. Can this instrument help with the characterization?

What is the purpose to require that the laws of physics be the same in all so-called inertial frames? On one hand it is natural to suppose that the basic laws, such as laws of mechanics and electrodynamics, are equally valid in every part of the Universe. It seems that almost all scientists believe in the unity of the Universe. But on the other hand such a belief is not very useful unless we have the power to confirm or deny its validity. For example, we can't test the validity of fluid mechanics on a planet 100 ly far from the Earth. Can we? All we can say is that the electromagnetic waves coming from far planet to us are pretty much the same as the EM waves we produce and use in our Earth-bound laboratories. That's all we can.

Imagine two identical copies of a system--laboratories--where we test mechanical waves. The systems are isolated, as much as possible, one from another, but are moving relative to each other with constant velocity v. In each system we would test a wave equation--in one system the equation is expressed with (x,t) coordinates, and in the other system with coordinates (x',t') (spatial and temporal coordinates). It is a simple math to show that the wave equations have the same form, but if we relate the coordinates as x'=x-vt & t'=t, the wave equation changes its form. The same will happen if we use Lorentz transformation, simply because the speeds of mechanical waves are different from the speed of light in vacuum. But, why we need to do that--to express our equations in the coordinates from some other system? Is it not enough to state that the laws governing the mechanical wave are the same? We already have two equal equations. It is true that we can find linear transformation, which is neither Galilean nor Lorentz, preserving the form of the equations in two systems, but for what purpose we should do that?

The bottom line is this--we don't need any theory of relativity. Any theory of relativity is useless and brings only confusion into physics.

Einstein stated that “The same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good”. In general, one of the main principle of SR is that "the laws of nature are the same for all inertial reference frames". Is this statement true?

One simple counter example refutes the above statement. Consider the law of the equality of the angles of reflection and incidence, say, when an ideal-elastic ball is thrown with a specific angle at a flat wall.

The reflection law is not true if the ball movement is studied from a different inertial frame. For example, if the experiment is observed by someone who is moving with the relative speed of

*parallel to the reflection flight of the ball, the angle of reflection is always the same for any angle of incidence. The latter angle depends on the relative speed between the frame and the observer,***v***.***v**In general, the angle of reflection can be smaller, equal or larger than the angle of incidence if observed from different inertial reference frames. Please see section 2.1 (page 4) of the attached article for illustrations and more details.

Actually the gate contact is my last step in fabrication and would like to know about which from the following is the best process for fin topology, Evaporation, Sputtering, and Electro deposition .and what is the tests that should be carried out after the deposition to check the quality of gate deposition?

For sustaining my PhD thesis I need to publish 1 or more articles with ISI impact factor (total ISI value 5). I have the experimental results from my previous job and I don't have the possibility to publish trough institution, so I have to publish them myself. The field is (electro)chemistry with aplication for food analysis (MSG). Do you know any journals with low costs for publishing an article (maxim 150 $) or even free?

How is it possible? What physics is behind it?

I need to do ECM process on metal matrix composites. where i can do it? any one suggest me.

This will help us to push vehicles at the speed of light

i am trying to do the electro optically tunable pulse compression , using second harmonic generation in bulk BBO crystal , for that i need to define to independent electric field vectors in fourier space to solve my coupled wave equations . if some one has any idea of how to define two independent electric field electric field vectors in fourier space using matlab please assist.

electric flux density is equal to (numerically ) to the charge per area

_{.....}_{but what are those lines ?? , the electric field strength is represented by lines .... however such lines do not exist ..... eventually is there a particle that mediates magnetic flux, electric field strength or electric flux .... eg protons mediates charge ...etc}

In case of O/W emulsions containing non ionic surfactant stabilized by using a phase inversion temperature technique . Does, the magnitude of the zeta potential will reflect the stability of emulsion?

I.e if my zeta potential is near to zero i.e, - 4 or -5. Do we need to consider the magnitude of zeta potential(above -30 and + 30 mV) to tell that emulsion is stable.

In what type of stabilization mechanisms such as steric stabilization, steric repulsion and electro kinetic stabilization. we need to consider the magnitude of zeta potential.

I am looking for a textbook about electroanalytical chemistry. may someone provide it to me? thanks in advance

I found this particular materials (FeTiO3/Fe2TiO5) focused on PEC water splitting system

i found very less DSSCs efficiency even less than 1%, it is lower than pure TiO2 why it is happen.

but in the the same kind of materials shows higher efficiency in PEC water splitting, how it is happen?

from few papers due to higher recombination rate and band position of materials reduces the DSSCs efficiency. but in the case of PEC water splitting this concept not matched ha how it is to be like this?

The Theory of Relativity is incorrect because the force of the interaction of two charges depends on the distance between the charges and on their relative velocity. Dimensions, time and mass do not depend on the velocity of movement of the charges.

All the phenomena of the electrodynamics of moving bodies are calculated simpler and more precisely with the help of a force that depends on distance and velocity [1] - [4], than with the help of the Theory of Relativity.

**References**

1. Smulsky, J.J. 1994. The Electromagnetic and Gravitational Actions (The Non-Relativistic Tractates).

*Novosibirsk: "Science" Publisher.*225 p. (In Russian).**http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/ElGrVz2.pdf****.**2. Smulsky, J.J. 1999. The Theory of Interaction.

*Novosibirsk: Publishing house of Novosibirsk University, Scientific Publishing Center of United Institute of Geology and Geophysics Siberian Branch of Russian**Academy of Sciences*. 293 p. (In Russian)**http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/TVfulA5_2.pdf**.3. Smulsky, J.J. 2004. The Theory of Interaction.

*Ekaterinburg, Russia: Publishing house "Cultural Information Bank"*. 304 p. http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/TVEnA5_2.pdf.4. Smulsky, J.J. 2014. Electrodynamics of moving bodies. Determination of forces and calculation of movements.

*Saarbrucken, Germany: "Palmarium Academic Publishing"*. 324 p. ISBN 978-3-659-98421-1. (In Russian). http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/ElMovBdJ.pdf.The recoil force of radiation is known for spontaneous emission (for the radiation of an accelerating charge or dipole), when the photon field is empty. Is there any difference when stimulated emission is considered? Would it be enough to add an external force to the original radiative reaction-force without changing the original form of the radiative reaction?

Respected sir

The different type of electrolyte used in ECM Process which electrolyte is best for ECM Process and if we are changing electrolyte the conductivity of work piece i will be change ........

it is possible or impossible ..........?

i am eagerly waiting for different answer and ideas

Greatest Regards

S.Sathishkumar

Respected sir

Greetings

ECM Process only suitable for conductive materials ,if material low conductivity some crucial process used for convert conductive materials then we will involve Machining by ECM But now my doubt is in case My materials is fully non conductive,if it is possible for convert Conductivity of materials in as per required limitation of ECM ......?

Best Regards

S.Sathishkumar

Light is electro magnetic wave. So, it should bend in strong magnetic field. Is it insignificant or no effect?

Collective effects are evident in billions and billions of particles or entities in physics, such as In lasers, electromagnetism [1], superconductivity, critical mass in nuclear physics, physics of fluids, thixotropic and other non-newtonian effects, fusion and fission, binding energy, gravity, and quantum mechanics.

There are applications also in maths. We discussed its application in social movements, where statistics is not used, nor psychology, but a causal model is introduced, based on physics of fluids and collective effects.

The problem is that a system made of billions of billions of particles or entities, as usual in physics of natural systems, is much harder to study, for example, in quantum behaviour or even classical.

In network theory, comes the example of 6 degrees of separation. Now, in physics [2,3], comes the example of 10 photons. Studying quantum behaviour of particles is much easier with fewer particles, so the fact that phase transitions occur in these small systems means we can better study quantum properties such as coherence.

Could we start to see behaviour of collective effects with 10 electrons or less? Can we use them to better study coherence also in non-quantum behaviour? What is the lower limit?

[1] Carver Mead, Collective Electrodynamics: Quantum Foundations of Electromagnetism,

[3] Driven-dissipative non-equilibrium Bose–Einstein condensation of less than ten photons, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-018-0270-1

In his book "Electrodynamics" Einstein gave an example of Lenz. Lenz obtained the Schwarzschild metric using the Lorentz transformations.

How far are the possibilities of such methods?

For example, I used the semiclassical method to get the gravitational field of a point source from Einstein's principle that the energy of the gravitational field is the source of the gravitational field.

I need to study the effect of very high power short duration electro magnetic pulses on electronic circuits. Which computational method may be suitable ? Time domain or frequency domain ? and which method in the respective domain ? Please give your suggestions.

I would like to measure the concentration of the metal( Gold, Copper, Silver, Platinum and Rhodium) ions in the acidic electrolyte.

Is there are device measure/ monitor the concentration of the ions?

Famous Lienard- Wiechert Potentials are given by:

V(

**R**, t) = (1/ 4.%pi. eplison0) qc /(rc -**r.v**)**A**(

**R**, t) = (

**v**/ c

^{2}) V(

**R**, t)

Where,

**v**is the retarded (earlier) velocity vector of the charge.The formulae were derived in "Introduction to Electrodynamics" by Griffiths; considering change in apparent length of a moving train . While the same were derived in "Feynman Lectures" by considering overlapping volume elements of the moving charge.

However, if the methods of these derivations were applied to the general case where observer were also moving, with some non-zero velocity

**u**; it looks as if the potentials would still remain the same; i.e. independent of**u**.If this is correct, the retardation effect would not vanish even if the charge & the observer both were moving with the same velocity, in same direction (i.e. in the same inertial frame); where it should vanish.

Do really, the Lienard- Wiechert Potentials depend upon "Absolute" velocity of the source; or relative velocity between the source & observer ?

Is any other derivations are available where this general case has been considered ?