🚀 go-pugleaf

selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0407161931.376c92f0@posting.google.com>...
> "Spaceman" <Spaceman@realspaceman.com> wrote in message news:<VLZIc.65325$JR4.14174@attbi_s54>...
> > >time-variable
> > 
> > <LOL>
> > like rubber rulers would make
> > length variables for the same object!
> > <LOL>
> > 
> > Too funny!
> > Time variable!
> > <ROFLOL>
> > You forgot what time was "invented for" huh?
> > Tis very sad that physics loses so much when
> > even the measurement standards are now "variables"
> > 
> > Next,
> > You will find out the inch has more than one length I suppose!
> > :)
> 
> Are not you tired to snip words from context? Maybe, it would be
> better to understand the meaning of written? ;-)
> 
> Sergey

   Sergey, no body has understood the meaning. I doubt if anybody had
read it carefully.
   You are right and you have proved it. The common assumption that
time dependent flux is always the cause of the emf is wrong. The
concept of flux linkages and change in it during motion is wrong. We
get equivalence only if the flux is homogeneous. You have proved that
it is not the same thing if the flux changes with distance. Your
equation 10 cannot be faulted. Derivation is correct.
   There is a minor slip before the statement of eq.10. Instead of
db*h you have written dh*b. Please correct it.