Induction

[Grumpy]

OK ladies and gentlemen.  I see a lot of talk about how capacitors, inductors, batteries, generators, and motors work.

How does a magnetic field induce a current  , and vice versa? 

What is a current?

Why does a current have a magnetic field?


These are very poynted questions and I want to hear the deep, low-down, no-holds-barred answers.

I am asking this because, in my search for answers, it all came down to these questions.

When you try to answer these questions, you will find that something isn't right.  Look hard enough, long enough and you'll see how it works and how every device that produces more output energy than input energy works.

We are going to fry some brains, cook some noodles, and leave people in straight jackets.

[MileHigh]

Grumpy:

Here is the intro clip:  "Intro | MIT 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzFQhsq8SF4&feature=PlayList&p=C2CEECFD938FD494&index=1

Here is the first of 37 more clips:  "Lec 1 | MIT 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3omwHv3Cmog&feature=PlayList&p=C2CEECFD938FD494&index=2

I hope that the links are pointing to the right places, YouTube links can be tricky sometimes.  I did not have time to find the real "playlist" link for all 37 clips.

If you have never looked at these clips and are truly interested then you should try to get through this stuff, even if it takes months.

In many cases the questions you pose result in a ton of pie-in-the-sky mumbo-jumbo talk on free energy web sites.  The answers you are looking for are in the 37 clips that form the MIT course.  I realize that my "answer" requires a ton of work to actually get through all of the clips, and some of the material will be very difficult to understand if you don't have a certain minimum background in mathematics.

MileHigh

[ion]

Hi Milehigh

Thank you for pointing us to the MIT videos.  I wonder, though if any of the students will actually have a real "feel" for what is going on in an inductive circuit.

Working the math is one thing, and we should be good at that to fine tune our invention. but invention itself requires a good "feel" for what one is doing. This can be lost in the forest of the math if insufficient lab "hands on" is not practiced.

I have seen and worked with EE's  that made serious and fatal errors by being sufficiently removed from the "feel" of what they were trying to accomplish.

I am not trashing EE's as I am one, but I have seen some serious errors posted on this site by EE's who should know better, and if they ever had their hands on this or that device, they would have known better.

Could you point to the video that explains clearly the

exact mechanism

that causes a current to flow in a closed loop of wire when a permanent magnet is moved in it's proximity?

I would also be interested in your explanation of what exactly is a magnetic "field"

[Grumpy]

Grumpy:

Here is the intro clip:  "Intro | MIT 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzFQhsq8SF4&feature=PlayList&p=C2CEECFD938FD494&index=1

Here is the first of 37 more clips:  "Lec 1 | MIT 8.02 Electricity and Magnetism, Spring 2002"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3omwHv3Cmog&feature=PlayList&p=C2CEECFD938FD494&index=2

I hope that the links are pointing to the right places, YouTube links can be tricky sometimes.  I did not have time to find the real "playlist" link for all 37 clips.

If you have never looked at these clips and are truly interested then you should try to get through this stuff, even if it takes months.

In many cases the questions you pose result in a ton of pie-in-the-sky mumbo-jumbo talk on free energy web sites.  The answers you are looking for are in the 37 clips that form the MIT course.  I realize that my "answer" requires a ton of work to actually get through all of the clips, and some of the material will be very difficult to understand if you don't have a certain minimum background in mathematics.

MileHigh

I posed the questions because the answer wasn't located anywhere.  Every single source skips right around it, except one, and even that one isn't crystal clear.

How does a changing magnetic field around a coil produce a current in the coil?

[Grumpy]

Come on dudes!  Take a good hard look at the ol' "lines of force" as applied to explain induction.

To make it more interesting, let's hypothesize that the great minds that derived the equations for induction glossed over the fine details.

Not being satisfied with magnetic induction, we shall drag the waters until the depths give up their dead! hahahaha! (evil genius laugh..)

edit:
http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/magnetic_induction.pdf

http://www.1stardrive.com/solar/mag.htm

[BEP]

G,

You sure know how to stir the pot 

They did gloss over the reality. It is documented. The little iron filings lined up in neat little rows and they figured the rows weren't there without the filings. But the 'lines' idea worked for everything then and I'll assume they figured gas like density gradients were harder to calculate. I think we had it correct in the beginning.

The problem came when the math used was changed. The details evaporated and so did the clarity but the math works!

Can't deny the math!

B.S. ... Throw out the fifth postulate....to start.

Damned magnetic field lines! Guess I need to sharpen my mower blades again 

[Grumpy]

Math is just a tool.  Equations can give the right answer, yet not reflect reality.

Looking for Bridgman's "The Logic of Modern Physics" - from around 1928.  He is supposed to have a different treatment of induction in this book.

What if William's Hooper's "new force" is real?  Might as well have crop circles in Kansas...

[BEP]

And when you have something that doesn't fit the model?

[Grumpy]

And when you have something that doesn't fit the model?

This is what I am talking about.

When you "move" the magnet, or "move" the coil, or "change" the magnetic field: What are you doing?   You no longer have just the magnetic field and the conductor. 

[poynt99]

You have some charge carriers (free electrons) being influenced by a time-varying magnetic field.

A time-varying magnetic field creates a time-varying electric field.

[BEP]

Ok.

So we increase the density of the charge carriers within the space of the intended induction without modifying the relative movement or strength of the mag.
----------

When I tried this the density of the magnetic field decreased upon relative movement.

My thought experiment likened the mag to a sponge and elec to water saturating the sponge. The idea was to see if induced output could be increased by increasing the saturation of that 'sponge'. This would have allowed addition of a static field to increase output.

Later, I realized my failure was due to only thinking about 2 planes. I was trying with linear movement 

[Grumpy]

Isn't the Lorentz force opposite the force of motion? 

Aren't you applying a force to move the conductor or magnet?

Don't you have to move the conductor or magnet perpendicular to the other, and the current is perpendicular to both?

Now we have a force, a magnetic field, and a conductor to work with.

Step aside from induction for a minute and ask yourself:  "What causes electrons and other particles to drift?"

[BEP]

Isn't the Lorentz force opposite the force of motion?

Lorentz force is the force on a point charge due to electromagnetic fields. The force on a current carrying wire has a few more names attached to it (and forces).

Aren't you applying a force to move the conductor or magnet?

On some methods, yes.

I get it. Please continue...

Don't you have to move the conductor or magnet perpendicular to the other, and the current is perpendicular to both?

Now we have a force, a magnetic field, and a conductor to work with.

Step aside from induction for a minute and ask yourself:  "What causes electrons and other particles to drift?"

I'll take a stab at it with 'the charge carrying particle with it's motion within the electric field'. I don't believe that is exactly true but only the way it is normally taught.

[Grumpy]

Lorentz force is the force on a point charge due to electromagnetic fields. The force on a current carrying wire has a few more names attached to it (and forces).
On some methods, yes.

I get it. Please continue...

I'll take a stab at it with 'the charge carrying particle with it's motion within the electric field'. I don't believe that is exactly true but only the way it is normally taught.

For electrons to drift, they must precess.   

Precession can be induced by two orthogonal forces.

In every single instance of induction there are two forces.  Either something is changing or moving, and there is a magnetic field.

One method of guiding center drift is FxB drift (I think they use the term "J" instead of "F").  Any independent force orthogonal to a magnetic field  induces a current.  So, moving magnetic fields induce a current since the force of the movement is orthogonal to the magnetic field inducing it.  This is how the collapsing magnetic field of a coil induces current in the conductor (what many mistakenly call BEMF)

(You also may not be aware of it, but a magnetic field can not move in the direction of it's vector.  Any appearance of doing so is actually a fold back and forth of the mag field.)

Now, if you could create a force and apply it to a conductor within a magnetic field, you will induce current in the conductor.  One such force mentioned in many texts is "gravity".  So, taking our "gravity" force, adding a magnetic field, we should be able to induce a current with nothing more than wire and a magnet - if we can orient everything correctly.

[BEP]

For electrons to drift, they must precess.   

Precession can be induced by two orthogonal forces.

In every single instance of induction there are two forces.  Either something is changing or moving, and there is a magnetic field.

One method of guiding center drift is FxB drift (I think they use the term "J" instead of "F").  Any independent force orthogonal to a magnetic field  induces a current.  So, moving magnetic fields induce a current since the force of the movement is orthogonal to the magnetic field inducing it.  This is how the collapsing magnetic field of a coil induces current in the conductor (what many mistakenly call BEMF)

BRAVO!

(You also may not be aware of it, but a magnetic field can not move in the direction of it's vector.  Any appearance of doing so is actually a fold back and forth of the mag field.)

One exception.... and it does include folding but also includes disconnection and reconnection (not field lines).

Now, if you could create a force and apply it to a conductor within a magnetic field, you will induce current in the conductor.  One such force mentioned in many texts is "gravity".  So, taking our "gravity" force, adding a magnetic field, we should be able to induce a current with nothing more than wire and a magnet - if we can orient everything correctly.

I believe you are correct. However, this action should be barely, if at all, measurable.

The second force should be stronger and almost a twin to the electric field. The closest I can think of is the energy of heat. The problem using heat is that it brings disorder, not order. Without a 'net' order there could be no more precession than that involved in drift current. Any use of heat, as that second force, would require an almost perfect zero voltage drop rectifier or something else to provide the same result.

[Grumpy]

Correct.  Gravity is pretty weak in this regard.  Heat might do the trick with the right setup, which is probably quite an engineering challenge.

What if we had another force at our disposal?

[BEP]

I know where you are going with the idea.

The problem I have is my understanding of 'it', to put it bluntly:

The jello where everything is suspended. 'Everything' being not much more than variations of density, eddies, vortices and wakes of the same substance.

How would I control another area of the same jello of which I am a part?

Make waves? I am a 'make waves' kinda guy  

Oh! Since I am putting my head on the chopping block.... That one unifying force? 'Elasticity' or the natural function of a force to equally distribute all stored energy.

[Grumpy]

difference in pressure

like "pressure" or "temperature"

You are familiar with "radiation pressure" - now, inject some steroids and wa-la

Say you found this force laying around on the bench.  Shouldn't you only need to position a magnetic field and a conductor, apply the force, and use the current?  You could make everything separately controllable and study it all.  Will this work?

[stevend]

I'm with WaveWatcher. I see it all as waves on a medium.

I don't think in terms of any unifying force. Instead there's a single source of energy, the perpetually moving waves between particles. The energy becomes a force when the waves interact with the particles, after all, the effect on particles is what we call force.

So heat energy is a chaotic exchange of waves between particles. Electricity, electrons moving along a conductor, is when those waves are exchanged between partilces but in a more pass-the-buck fashion where the energy of the waves is passed from one electron to the next and then on to the next and so on down the conductor.

But I haven't quite got a handle on the magnetic field yet. The particles have spin, which I think is a spherical rotation within the particles. Waves arrive at the particle, undergo spherical rotation, and then are emitted back out. I think this means that the resulting outward moving spherical wave would also have a component resulting from the spherical rotation and not be just a simple expanding spherical wave. When this wave, with some sort of rotational component in it, arrives at an electron, the rotational component interacts with the electron in a way that we see as induction. But I'm still fuzzy on that.

I try to look for ways to tap into all these waves between the particles but have yet to think of a way of doing it. I have a particle creation idea but it falls short too, though since it's all I have at the moment I still pursue it. My fuzziness about the rotational (magnitic field) component still gives me hope.

For the standard model, the equivalent of all this is looking at how to tap into the random pertubations between the particles i.e. quantum vacuum energy. But I find it easier to look at it as waves.

PS. For anyone curious about my particle creation ideas:
http://rimstar.org/sdenergy/vacuum_energy
and for the Wave Structure of Matter model:
http://wsminfo.org

[BEP]

Steve
Ill respond when I'm not mobile.   Fat fingers and tiny keypads suck.

[Allcanadian]

@All
I think we can confuse this issue to no end or we can make it relatively simple, that is we do not have to create anything new and mysterious to understand things. If we consider that there are three fundamental forces-- electric, magnetic and gravitational then every effect we know of or not can be considered as an interaction between these forces as it relates to whatever occupies a given space. If we discover something new or unique then this is simply an interaction of these forces with what occupies a given space that we have not considered. In this case I think everything becomes easier because we do not have to keep making shit up to explain everything we don't understand and all we have to is say are the words---- I do not understand the interaction of forces. As well we must understand the fundamentals first before anything else can make sense, I hear everyone speaking of magnetism, electricity and their associated fields as if everything was understood yet I have never heard a reasonable explanation for "what" they are. In 30 years of research I have never heard or read a detailed explanation for what they are that was not unproven theories or in layman's terms --- complete BS. In any case I think you guys are moving in the right direction here by keeping everything simple relative to all the BS we see from the scientific community lately, how many mystery particles,strings/strands, alternate dimensions and worm holes can there be?, lol.
Regards
AC

[stevend]

@All
I think we can confuse this issue to no end or we can make it relatively simple, that is we do not have to create anything new and mysterious to understand things. If we consider that there are three fundamental forces-- electric, magnetic and gravitational then every effect we know of or not can be considered as an interaction between these forces as it relates to whatever occupies a given space.

@allcanadian,
And my approach is different. I agree with the conservation of energy (I'm don't know whether you
do or don't) and that energy can only be transformed from one form to another. So I look for
an energy source and then a method to convert that form of energy to one I desire, electrical
energy i.e. electrons moving down a wire. The only source I can see that is sufficiently abundent and omnipresent and will not run out is vacuum energy. So I explore transforming that. As for what is energy and why it is conserved, the wave structure of matter (WSM) model contains a clear and simple explanation of those two things so it suits me well.

If we discover something new or unique then this is simply an interaction of these forces with what occupies a given space that we have not considered. In this case I think everything becomes easier because we do not have to keep making shit up to explain everything we don't understand and all we have to is say are the words---- I do not understand the interaction of forces.

I have a pretty good grasp of the electrical force, and the gravitational force and less so the magnetic force. Not a perfect grasp, but getting there. But I have that grasp using the WSM model.

As well we must understand the fundamentals first before anything else can make sense, I hear everyone speaking of magnetism, electricity and their associated fields as if everything was understood yet I have never heard a reasonable explanation for "what" they are. In 30 years of research I have never heard or read a detailed explanation for what they are that was not unproven theories or in layman's terms --- complete BS.

Perhaps the reason you haven't heard of a reasonable explanation is because you are working with an inadequate model for doing so. The standard quantum mechanics models have accomplished wonders and will continue to do so, but since I couldn't find my answers there I looked elsewhere.

In any case I think you guys are moving in the right direction here by keeping everything simple relative to all the BS we see from the scientific community lately, how many mystery particles,strings/strands, alternate dimensions and worm holes can there be?, lol.

Agreed 100%. Throw enough dimensions in your model and you can probably make anything work. What I like about WSM is its simplicity, and while it still needs an army of physicists to work on it further, just as the standard models had, I'm willing to chance it for now. Scientists talk about elegant models but they sure don't care in practice.

But I'm under no illusion that this group is interested in alternate models. It was just that what WaveWatcher said was so in line with WSM, I thought I'd give it a try here again. If there's no further interest, I won't bother further.
-Steve
http://rimstar.org   http://wsminfo.org

Regards
AC

[BEP]

I'm a pretty practical kinda guy. So practical that I consider much of the current explanations always needing more explanations and then topped with BS a bit too much..

Particles, particles and more particles. Then come the strings. I want to scream, GIMMEABREAK!

Sure the math works. I've been digging for the note but there was one really funny formula for a banana split that was also used in MHD.

As far as, WSM... never heard of it until very recently. I have read some. Yes, I'll have to agree it is a much simpler explanation but the idea isn't new. All I've seen so far was being taught as far back as the mid 70's. That class explained the other 'pseudo' field - magnetic - as well.

It doesn't matter what vision we are using. Whatever the stuff is, it is still the same stuff.

Oh! I forgot the ultimate fudge-factor - DARK STUFF!
AND, my personal favorite - THE STRINGY STUFF!

THEN..... When those ideas start to fall apart or receive negative comments..... MULTIVERSAL STUFF with MULTIPLE-EXISTENCE/INSTANCE STUFF!

A bowl of jello vibrating with ripples, waves and eddies is much more believable.

I think I'm STUFFED.



 

[ion]

Wavewatcher

I am in agreement with your above post. Physics is turning more into religion. For example dark matter and dark energy....it's everywhere but you can't see it or measure it directly. You can only attribute effects to it.

Now if that doesn't sound like religion, what does. The big bang seems more an aspect of pure and real magic than creationism.

In studying electricity, we are first taught like charges repel, and unlike charges attract. But when we go to the nucleus of the atom, that postulate falls apart so we have to patch our theory and invent a term to keep our model from being contradictory. So we invent the "strong force" which keeps these particles clumped together. Then we write a formula for the strong force to prove it exists and everything is happy again, the model has been patched.

I won't get into it here but there is a model that makes more sense and is not full of patches.

[BEP]

it's everywhere but you can't see it or measure it directly. You can only attribute effects to it.

Kind of places science and pseudo-science on an even keel, doesn't it