Journal of Basic and Applied Physics                            
Journal of Basic and Applied Physics(JBAP)
Frequency: Annually
The Repulsive Force Within Ampère’s Bridge Explained by Coulomb’s Law and Special Relativity Theory, Taking into Account the Effects of Propagation Delay
Full Paper(PDF, 548KB)
It has been previously proved that the repulsive force between the two parts of Ampère’s bridge, measured in experiments performed by Pappas and Moyssides, can be explained by Coulomb’s law, if the effects of propagation delay are correctly taken into account. Special relativity theory is also necessary to estimate the extent to which it may affect the result. Otherwise it might be unnecessary to involve special relativity theory in the case of DC currents carried by electric conductors, because the velocities of conduction electrons are usually very small compared to the speed of light. However, in this paper, the force between the two parts of Ampère’s Bridge has been calculated, taking into account special relativity theory, particularly the Lorentz transformation which brings about a change in the lengths of moving bodies. The result is that the repulsive force between the two parts of Ampère’s bridge remains repulsive, displaying dependence on the thickness of the branches, decreasing with increasing thickness. This was also the case when analysis was conducted without taking into account the special relativity theory. In fact, the predictions are in complete agreement with physical measurements.
Keywords:Ampère’s Law; Coulomb’s Law; Propagation Delay; Electromagnets; Ampère’s Bridge; Lorentz Force; Retarded Action; Special Relativity Theory, Lorentz Transformation
Author: J. O. Jonson1
1.Alumnus of the KTH, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
  1. J. O. Jonson, “The Magnetic Force between Two Currents Explained Using Only Coulomb’s Law”, Chinese Journal of Physics, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 139-149, 1997. [Online]. Available: ISSN 0577-9073.
  2. J. O. Jonson, “Refutation of Feynman’s Derivation of the Lienard-Wiechert Potentials”, Proc. 10th Natural Philosophy Alliance Conference, Storrs, CT, United States, Journal of New Energy, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 42-44, 2003. [Online]. Available:
  3. J. O. Jonson, “The Law of Electromagnetic Induction Proved to be False Using Classical Electrostatics”, Journal o Theoretics, vol. 5, no. 3, 2003. [Online]. Available:
  4. J. O. Jonson, “The Use of Finite Differences on Electric Currents Gives Credit to Coulomb’s Law as Causing Electromagnetic Forces, thereby Explaining Electromagnetic Induction”, IJMO, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 373-376, 2013. [Online]. Available: DOI: 10.7763/IJMO.2013.V3.301.
  5. J. O. Jonson, “The Claim that Neumann’s Induction Is Consistent with Ampère’s Law Rejected”, IJMO, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 326-331, 2014. [Online]. Available: DOI: 10.7763/IJMO.2014.V4.394.
  6. J. P. Wesley, “Ampere Repulsion and Graneau’s Exploding Wire,” Progress in Space-Time Physics, Benjamin Wesley-Publisher, pp. 181-186, 1987.
  7. P. Graneau, “Longitudinal magnet forces”, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 55, p. 2598, 1984. [Online]. Available: DOI: 10.1063/1.333247.
  8. J. P. Wesley, “Ampere Repulsion Drives the Graneau-Hering Submarine and Hering’s Pump,” Progress in Space-Time Physics, Benjamin Wesley-Publisher, p. 187-192, 1987.
  9. P. Graneau, “Ampere Tension in Electric Conductors”, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. Mag-20, no. 2, pp. 444-455, March 1984. [Online]. Available: DOI: 10.1109/TMAG.1984.1063069.
  10. A. K. T. Assis, “Weber’s Electrodynamics,” Fundamental Theories of Physics, vol. 66, 1994. [Online]. Available: DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-3670-1.
  11. J. O. Jonson, “Ampère's Law Proved Not to Be Compatible with Grassmann’s Force Law”, Electromagnetic Radiation, InTech, 2012. [Online]. Available: DOI: 10.5772/37978.
  12. J. C. Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, vol. II, Third Edition, London: Oxford University Press, p. 319, 1873.
  13. A. K. T. Assis and A. Bueno, “Equivalence between Ampère and Grassmann’s Forces”, IEEE Transactions on Magnetics, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 431-436, March 1996. [Online]. Available: DOI: 10.1109/20.486529.
  14. P. G. Moyssides and P. T. Pappas, “Rigorous Quantitative Test of Biot-Savart-Lorentz Forces”, J. Appl. Phys., vol. 59, no. 1, p. 19-27, 1986. [Online]. Available: DOI:10.1063/1.336863.
  15. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 1975.
  16. R. P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, (mainly Electromagnetism and Matter), USA, Addison-Wesley, vol. II, Sixth printing, p. 21-9-21-11, 1977, ISBN 0-201-02117-X-P, ISBN 0-201-02011-4-H.
  17. A. Ramgard, Relativitetsteori, Teoretisk Fysik, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 2-14, 1977. [Online]. Available:
  18. R. Resnick, Introduction to Special Relativity, John Wiley & Sons, USA, p. 60, 1968.
  19. M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Dover Publications, New York, 1972, Eq. (3.6.9) p. 15. [Online]. Available: Library of Congress Catalog Number: 65-12253.
  20. J. C. Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, London, UK, Oxford University Press, vol. 2, p. 319. ARK: 13960/t2s47ss48, 1873.
  21. J. P. Wesley, Progress in Space-Time Physics, Benjamin Wesley- Publisher, ISBN 3-9800942-2-7, pp. 174-177.
  22. J. P. Wesley, “Weber electrodynamics extended to include radiation”, Speculations in Science and Technology, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 52. ISSN: 0155-7785.
  23. James Clerk Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, vol. 2, 3rd ed., London: Oxford University Press, p. 315, 1873.