Steve, now that you see what Kerr geometry has in store, try out the the DKS fields, for a HOOT…………….. They are quite distinct from mine, and the tangential field is pretty weak. There is no very near-field, piece of cake, haaaaaaaaaaaaa. The action here is right near the ring edge. Let’s make Burinskii eat his heart out with cool plots. MY ORIGINAL INTENT WAS to produce plots like the DKS plots, with my field components, however. If the mountian does not move to Mohammed, Mohammed will move to the mountain. Yours troooly metaphorically challenged. Irregardless, or REGARDLESS as the case is, I say what I say. My fields are better.
Perhaps to quibble over “very near-fields”, because only as the cosine goes to zero at the very ring edge, does the DKS field get HOT… Burinskii admitted a month ago, working to see his field right here. He admitted also never concerning himself with the “Tinker Bell” point on the SPIN axis.
I WILL LAUGH LAST.
albersphysics 
I could try this, though it might take a bit of hammering of things. Hopefully not a sledge hammer though? Is it the exact same method as before, except swapping e(r) and e(t) fields? I think the field strength comes out non-classical at large r from what I had, so that might need some fixing.
! DKS field
e_r(r,theta) = (-(r**2d0) + cos(theta)**2d0) / (r**2d0+cos(theta)**2d0)**2d0
e_t(r,theta) = 2d0*r*sin(theta)*cos(theta) / (r**2d0+cos(theta)**2d0)**2d0
Another consideration is that I think the Albers field lines are always travelling in the same radial sense. Do the DKS fields loop in and out?
LikeLike
Or maybe I would need to plot at much larger r to get a classical result, compared with the albers field plotted r range?
LikeLike
Yes the DKS fields are pretty nuts, I had not stopped to think. Whatever, don’t bust yer head over it. Both fields, theirs and mine, yield unto the far field at a “few radii” of Kerr. I have sometimes stopped myself, thinking, I don’t need to put a lot of energy into their fields. My criticisms are already valid. The DKS fields are Burinskii’s problem and downfall.
LikeLike
IN THE DKS FIELDS, you will find intensity just at the ring edge, eh? There you must go close to r= what?, ALPHA I guess. SEE, only there is the cosine zero, and r goes to the inner limit. Thus only here do the fields have any ‘cojones. LOOK AT THEIR PLOT, as per Lynden-Bell’s paper. You see the shenanigans in the tangential field out at r = 1, screw ’em.
LikeLike
Sounds good as I think I saw the field being strong near the ring edge in a test plot. I’ll see if I can find the DKS field plot, unless you can easily resend it or post it here.
It seems the Albers field looks more classical at r=3 or so. By inspection the DKS equation (coded above) should do something similar. However my plots aren’t yet showing this, so I can check the log file to see how the E_r and E_t values compare with the classical ones.
LikeLike
I am surprised to hear this; I thought it all fades away into far field outside of a few Kerr radii… I’ll look. At the famed Tinker Bell point, both fields go to zero !!! This is at r=1…….. On the SPIN axis, obviously the tangential field oughtta zip, but hey !!!
LikeLike
I now see my initial test had r outer only at 1. Now I set it to 3.0. The plot only shows those lines that travel into the far field, and skips those that circle in the inner area. An augmented strategy would be needed to add the inner lines.
And here’s the image, debuting on my new web site!
I’ll think about the idea of a color scale as well.
LikeLike
Note you can click on the image to see a larger version that comes from the website.
LikeLike
FUN NOW !!!! ®t ®t . . . . I trust you are as highly entertained as I. Alexander will eat his heart out. IS THERE ANY QUADRUPOLE MOMENT associated with electrons?
LikeLike