"How to Use Einstein's Metageometric Cosmoplastic Principle for Pondermotive Locomotion."

 Holy-oh ʿĪsā ibn Maryam, Astronaut!

Sir Oliver Lodge speculated on what would happen if Lenz’s Law were reversed, and he used language like “violent” or “runaway” to describe the resulting motion. But the excited language describing the catastrophic consequences comes from later pedagogical summaries of Lenz’s Law, not from Lodge’s own formal texts.
The most concrete sourced description of the “violent” runaway behavior is the standard physics explanation of what would happen if Lenz’s Law were inverted: the induced current would reinforce the change in magnetic flux instead of opposing it, causing an exponential blow‑up (their fave word) of motion and field strength. This is described in modern teaching materials as a “catastrophe” involving runaway growth of current and magnetic field.
'Yain't really lived until...
What the musty sources actually say:
- Lenz’s Law requires that induced currents oppose the change in magnetic flux.
- If the law were reversed, the induced current would assist the change in flux.
- Physics Tutor Online describes this hypothetical reversal as producing a runaway process:
- The induced current strengthens the magnetic field
- The strengthened field induces even more current
- The cycle repeats, producing exponential growth
- This violates conservation of energy and is labeled a catastrophe
- In my arrogant opinion, physicists are too fond of the word "catastrophe', using it most famously in the place where classical thermodynamics fuxup. To wit, "UV catastrophe" which has since been transferred metaphorically by string cosmology.
This matches the “violent motion” phrasing you recall — even if the exact word “violent” isn’t in the modern sources, the described dynamics are exactly that: explosive, uncontrolled, and physically impossible. And I just KNOW this was Lodge's exact wording. Remember, this was the turn of the last century and scientists were extremely buttoned-down, at least in public. His 𝘌𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦 (1909) discusses electromagnetic induction extensively, but the text does not include a passage about reversing Lenz’s Law or describing “violent” motion. I think now it is in a photocopy of an article written for a periodical when I went berserk in the OSU library. Given Lodge’s style — he often used vivid language when describing electromagnetic phenomena — it’s plausible he made such a remark in a lecture or lesser‑known essay.
Anyhew the idea EXISTS in physics pedagogy, and the catastrophic runaway behavior is well‑described, but I just cain't find the specific Lodge phrasing.
I'll just pretend and bluff my way through, brazen it out, and all sorts of other social interactions autistic people must master.
Why does reversed Lenz’s Law lead to “violent” motion?
- A conductor moving in a magnetic field would experience a force that accelerates it further, not resists it.
- The faster it moves, the stronger the induced current.
- The stronger the current, the stronger the magnetic field.
- The stronger the field, the stronger the force accelerating the conductor.
- The system becomes a self‑amplifying loop — essentially a perpetual‑motion explosion.
This is exactly the kind of “violent” runaway Lodge liked to warn about when discussing violations of conservation laws, even if the specific quote isn’t in my personal possession. I can't get my hands on it right now.
I am too damn lazy tp track down:
- Lodge’s original induction lectures
- Passages in 𝘔𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘝𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘌𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺
- His Royal Institution discourses on magnetism
The whole thing is probably a conspiracy on the part of Ample Storage, or the homeless guy who lives there, or both. The latter worthy was cheated of the Disney fortune.
My aim was to inspire a revival of America's wonted productivist mindset, present only in those tireless researchers in their barns and basements, like the fellow in Benson who built his own Tesla coil and performs a
Strickfaden gig for local high school students. "Induction fields, induction fields, induction-type force fields, field-type forces are the key!"
How was I to know that Bretton Woods' making the US$ the reserve currency rendered this civilization-reconstituting project impossible? Really, though, the gold standard had already queered the engineering profession and industry generally.
I need to revise that chapter when the real Strickfaden walks in on Iain Reid when he improves on refining copper electrically. His innovation is getting it directly out of the leach. It was his brother Frank who figured out how to make the runaway solution come true and become the celebrated inventor in the Great Airship Mystery.*
Maybe that fellow in Benson can turn lead into gold.
*Um, Frank disappeared, sort of. The airship stories got pushed out of the headlines by the Spanish-American War, America's first imperialist adventure. Well, outside CONUS. Oh, to hell with it.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Blueprint v. the Altar Call

Obama didn’t use the word deindustrialization as often as economists or critics did, but his administration’s stance is very clear in the record: he saw the long decline of U.S. manufacturing as a structural problem that needed active correction, not something to accept as inevitable.  In Obama’s view, deindustrialization was a threat to middle‑class stability. Obama consistently treated the erosion of manufacturing capacity as a danger to economic resilience and to the social fabric. His policy documents describe the loss of industrial jobs as something the federal government should reverse, not merely cushion. His “Blueprint to Support U.S. Manufacturing Jobs” explicitly framed offshoring as a harmful trend and proposed tax changes to discourage it. He regarded offshoring as a policy failure, not a natural market outcome.  Full marks, Mr. President!   His administration argued that the tax code rewarded firms for moving production overseas and needed to be rewritte...
Read more

The Throughput World Order

Image
Isn't Immanuel Wallerstein's "world system" just the latest variant of a Universal Empire? Not quite — and the distinction is pre'-damn-near illuminating once you tease apart what Wallerstein is describing and what Toynbee means by a Universal Empire. There's a rhyme, but they’re not the same creature. In fact, the gap between them is where the modern world hides its deepest structural weirdness. 1. A Universal Empire is a political unification. Toynbee’s Universal Empire is a single sovereign authority that forcibly knits together a civilization after its creative energies have died out. Its traits are unmistakable: - one imperial center   - one administrative shell   - one military monopoly   - coercive unity   - cultural mummification   Rome, Qin-Han, the Caliphate, the Mauryas — these are Universal Empires. They are states. A Universal Empire is a political solution to civilizational breakdown. 2. Wallerstein’s world-system is not a ...
Read more

The Century of Recovery

Image
Monbiot's reading list is pre=approved by moi. I have been following Raworth and Klein for years. They're hip to the evolutionary, historical, time-based entropy in human institutions which many take to last forever, taken for granted as products of natural law. My culture-hero character defined capitalism as profit-seeking in a price structure. He went on to say that fascism is the concluding form of capitalism. The seller will hold a gun to your head and compel you to buy only his product. This is when profit‑seeking detached from real human needs and from the social purpose that once justified it. And he's right to say that he saw a deep psychological deformation in the elites who came to dominate late‑stage financial capitalism when profit became an end in itself. Profit is never about human benefit, only incidentally. Human benefit is not its primary concern. The Quartet that financed Hitler were pseudo-psychotic psychopaths about profit. Any other system that did not ...
Read more