PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-05-23, 06:22:08
News: A feature is available which provides a place all members can chat, either publicly or privately.
There is also a "Shout" feature on each page. Only available to members.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
Author Topic: On the notion of a magnetic motor  (Read 7839 times)

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4673


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,
As I understand your theory, there is a neutral zone outside the middle of the magnet where no induction or force occurs due to the magnetic field. Yet when I move a conductor or coil side (conductors in series bundled tightly together) along there, in the direction of the green arrow, I measure an induced voltage. Also, a moving charge through the green arrow line moving perpendicular to the green arrow and perpendicular to the magnetic axis, experiences a Lorentz force along the line of the green arrow. These observed phenomena are consistent with Faraday's Law and Lorentz's Law, respectfully, and with conventional magnetic flux field theory.
bi

I am not sure what you mean by ( Yet when I move a conductor or coil side along there, in the direction of the green arrow)?
If you have a coil/inductor laying on it's side, where one end of the core is toward the north end of the magnet, and the other end is toward the south end of the magnet, then of course you will get an induced voltage. If the coil core is at right angles to the length of the magnet, then no induced voltage will be seen across the coil when the core is passed across the center position of the magnet.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 450
I don't recall drawing any such thing, regarding the internal workings of the PMs body.
All the diagrams i use, are of your conventional drawings taken from the internet.
I only add or change things on those drawings to show what i believe to be correct.

I was referring to your "FIELD GRADIENT.JPG" in reply #85.  I had to ask you about it because I did not know what it was supposed to represent.

Quote
If we are to stick to !convention!, then the forum might as well be shut down.
This forum exists to find errors and mistakes in know science, so as we can find that !over unity! device-is it not?
We are not here to stick with convention. We are here to find the unknown.

Well, that is why I asked about what appeared to be something new, so it could be understood by all (the typical reason we have conventions, units, etc.)

Quote
Your convention cannot explain what the magnetic field is, or how it can produce these invisible forces, whereas the two-field theory explains it quite well.
Knowing and understanding what we can do with the magnetic field, in no way shows or tells us what it actually is--unless you know what it is?
Everything we have that provides some form of energy, is a flow from a high energy state, to a low energy state.

You do not know what "my convention" explains.  However, it does not require a two field theory.

Quote
Would you agree that it takes energy to align the magnetic domains within a ferromagnetic material?

Yes, I would agree...

Quote
If so, when we bring the fields of a PM close to say a piece of steel, where did the energy come from to align those magnetic domains within that piece of steel?
I will tell you where it came from--it came from the energy field that surrounds the PM.
The negative field at one end of the PM will cause electron spin alignment in one direction within the piece of steel, and the positive field at the other end of the PM, will cause electron spin alignment in the opposite direction in the piece of steel. There is your Lorentz force being applied to the electrons within the steel.

One thing i would like to ask you PW.
You stated in another post that you do not believe that the magnetic field is fixed in space, but rotates with the PM.
We can provide examples that shows the magnetic field is fixed in space, like the homopolar generator and motor.
Can you provide examples that show the field to be rotating with the PM ?
I only ask, as i am not aware of any such examples, but if they exist, i would like to see them, as this would add to us understanding what the magnetic field is.

I have answers, or at least some theories, for most of the questions presented above, however, as I stated earlier, for now I would like to focus on whether there is a single field as it has been understood to be for some time, or whether there is two separate fields with a null in the middle as you propose.

With the explanation I provided in my previous posts, I do not see the three coil experiment as being proof of two fields. 

Have you performed any other experiments that provide further support of your two field theory?

PW
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 126
I am not sure what you mean by ( Yet when I move a conductor or coil side along there, in the direction of the green arrow)?
If you have a coil/inductor laying on it's side, where one end of the core is toward the north end of the magnet, and the other end is toward the south end of the magnet, then of course you will get an induced voltage. If the coil core is at right angles to the length of the magnet, then no induced voltage will be seen across the coil when the core is passed across the center position of the magnet.


Brad

Hi Brad,

Refer to my reply #32 for photos of my test setup.

The diagram, of yours, which I marked with the green arrow is orientated differently. The green arrow represents the direction of the movement of the conductor (or coil side) or the direction of force on the conductor (or coil side). The conductor (or coil side) is perpendicular to the green arrow and perpendicular to the magnetic axis, consistent with the right hand rule, in quadrature.

I did not use a core as that would corrupt the field. Concerning the coil side, the opposite side was 4 to 5 inches away, such that it was not factor with induction.

Hope that clears it up.
bi
 
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4673


Buy me some coffee
I was referring to your "FIELD GRADIENT.JPG" in reply #85.  I had to ask you about it because I did not know what it was supposed to represent.

Well, that is why I asked about what appeared to be something new, so it could be understood by all (the typical reason we have conventions, units, etc.)

You do not know what "my convention" explains.  However, it does not require a two field theory.

Yes, I would agree...



 

Have you performed any other experiments that provide further support of your two field theory?

PW

Quote
With the explanation I provided in my previous posts, I do not see the three coil experiment as being proof of two fields.

It also does not disprove it, and fits perfectly with the outcomes.

Quote
I have answers, or at least some theories, for most of the questions presented above, however, as I stated earlier, for now I would like to focus on whether there is a single field as it has been understood to be for some time, or whether there is two separate fields with a null in the middle as you propose.

Here in lies the problem with being indoctrinate with current theory, where even when presented with a sound alternate theory, it is simply ignored because it is not conventional.
Everything that works with the single field theory, works with the two field theory, but the two field theory explains as to what the magnetic field actually is, where as the single field theory has no explanation as to what the field actually is.

The thing is, the two field theory cannot be disproven, using conventional single field theory, as the two offer the very same results.
Science is not about finding ways to confirm conventional theories, it's about finding other theories that give the same result, but offer some more explanation on that which is yet to be explained, such as--what is the magnetic field? The single field theory sees an electron being forced in one direction at one end of the magnet, and the other direction at the other end of the magnet.
A negative charge also sees an electron forced in one direction, while a positive charge sees it forced in the other direction.

We have agreed on one thing, and that is--the field already existed in a neutral state around the PM body before it was magnetized.
We also agree that some form of organization took place within that field, once the PM body is magnetized.
But for the single field theory, this is where it ends, where no explanation can be given to what that field is.
With the two field theory, we can see that some form of charge separation has taken place within the field around the PM.
This charge separation now explains why like poles repel, and unlike poles attract--conventional electrical theory, only with this field-the field around the PM, we are looking at some other kind of charge that is not like the electrical charge we know of today.

Sometimes i get somewhat disappointed by some here, who refuse to open their mind to alternatives, but blindly follow conventional theory, even when the alternative shows the exact same outcome to the conventional, but also offers more. Remove those man made field lines, arrows, and pole denotations, and what do you have? You have the two field PM.

That field around the PM, is an endless source of energy.
All we need to do is find out how to draw that energy from the field.

Something to think about--
You have agreed that it takes energy to align the magnetic domains within a ferromagnetic material.
So lets say we have a simple rotor that has two magnets in it, where one has the south pole pointing out, and the other has the north pole pointing out.
This rotor is attached to a motor, and we have a steel core that the magnets pass. when each magnet passes this core, the magnetic domains are aligned within the core, and this alignment changes every time one of the magnets pass the core, due to their orientation. And lets say that the motor is rotating the disk at 2000RPM, which would mean the magnetic domains within the core changes (for simplicity) 180* 4000 times a minute. We run the motor for say 24 hours, and so the magnetic domains of that core have change direction 5,760,000 times. We find the PMs field remains the same, so where did the energy come from to change the magnetic domains within that core material?--It came from the field that surrounds the PM, not the PM it self. We have such PM generators that run for 10's of years. Can you imagine how many times the PMs fields have flipped those cores magnetic domains.

So i say, instead of trying to use the conventional single field theory to disprove the two field theory, try and show where or why the two field theory does not work the same as the single field theory.

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4673


Buy me some coffee
Hi Brad,

Refer to my reply #32 for photos of my test setup.

The diagram, of yours, which I marked with the green arrow is orientated differently. The green arrow represents the direction of the movement of the conductor (or coil side) or the direction of force on the conductor (or coil side).

 Concerning the coil side, the opposite side was 4 to 5 inches away, such that it was not factor with induction.

Hope that clears it up.
bi

That does not represent my experiment.

Quote
I did not use a core as that would corrupt the field.

I see.
So you agree that the ferromagnetic cores would change the field vectors.
Interesting.

Quote
The conductor (or coil side) is perpendicular to the green arrow and perpendicular to the magnetic axis, consistent with the right hand rule, in quadrature.

And would give consistent results as would be had by the two field theory.

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 450
It also does not disprove it, and fits perfectly with the outcomes.

As does the single field theory...

Quote
Here in lies the problem with being indoctrinate with current theory, where even when presented with a sound alternate theory, it is simply ignored because it is not conventional.
Everything that works with the single field theory, works with the two field theory, but the two field theory explains as to what the magnetic field actually is, where as the single field theory has no explanation as to what the field actually is.

The thing is, the two field theory cannot be disproven, using conventional single field theory, as the two offer the very same results.
Science is not about finding ways to confirm conventional theories, it's about finding other theories that give the same result, but offer some more explanation on that which is yet to be explained, such as--what is the magnetic field?

I agree, but alternate explanations can be had, or theorized, that do not negate hundreds of years of observation and measurement.

Quote
The single field theory sees an electron being forced in one direction at one end of the magnet, and the other direction at the other end of the magnet.
A negative charge also sees an electron forced in one direction, while a positive charge sees it forced in the other direction.

We have agreed on one thing, and that is--the field already existed in a neutral state around the PM body before it was magnetized.
We also agree that some form of organization took place within that field, once the PM body is magnetized.
But for the single field theory, this is where it ends, where no explanation can be given to what that field is.
With the two field theory, we can see that some form of charge separation has taken place within the field around the PM.

Your two field theory does not explain what a magnetic field "is", anymore than the single field theory does.  It just redefines its properties in ways that are not supported by measurements.

Quote
This charge separation now explains why like poles repel, and unlike poles attract--conventional electrical theory, only with this field-the field around the PM, we are looking at some other kind of charge that is not like the electrical charge we know of today.

So now we need additional unknown "charges" of some unknown nature to make the two field theory work.  Does your two field theory actually tell us what a magnetic field actually "is", no, you are just assigning additional characterizations with a new theory.  Can your separate "charges" exist as monopoles?  Why do these opposite charges repel?  What is the force that causes that?

Quote
Sometimes i get somewhat disappointed by some here, who refuse to open their mind to alternatives, but blindly follow conventional theory, even when the alternative shows the exact same outcome to the conventional, but also offers more. Remove those man made field lines, arrows, and pole denotations, and what do you have? You have the two field PM.

I consider myself quite open minded, and have followed along on this thread with great interest to see where it would go.  I do not "blindly follow conventional theory".  There is no reason for you to go there...

How does removing "field lines, arrows, and pole denotations" in any way support your two field theory?  Shall we also discard the right hand rule and everything else science has been able to measure, characterize, and simulate with regard to the character and interactions of a magnetic field?

Quote

That field around the PM, is an endless source of energy.
All we need to do is find out how to draw that energy from the field.

Something to think about--
You have agreed that it takes energy to align the magnetic domains within a ferromagnetic material.
So lets say we have a simple rotor that has two magnets in it, where one has the south pole pointing out, and the other has the north pole pointing out.
This rotor is attached to a motor, and we have a steel core that the magnets pass. when each magnet passes this core, the magnetic domains are aligned within the core, and this alignment changes every time one of the magnets pass the core, due to their orientation. And lets say that the motor is rotating the disk at 2000RPM, which would mean the magnetic domains within the core changes (for simplicity) 180* 4000 times a minute. We run the motor for say 24 hours, and so the magnetic domains of that core have change direction 5,760,000 times. We find the PMs field remains the same, so where did the energy come from to change the magnetic domains within that core material?--It came from the field that surrounds the PM, not the PM it self. We have such PM generators that run for 10's of years. Can you imagine how many times the PMs fields have flipped those cores magnetic domains.

I fail to see what any of the above has to do with proving your two field theory.

Quote
So i say, instead of trying to use the conventional single field theory to disprove the two field theory, try and show where or why the two field theory does not work the same as the single field theory.

Does this mean that the three coil experiment was your only proof of the two field theory?  If you have some other experiment that support's your theory, I am anxious to hear what it is. 

Somewhat unrelated to the single pole/two pole question of a PM, scientists have studied the Earth's magnetosphere in some detail.  Charged particles can become trapped by and travel between the poles following what at least appears to be magnetic field lines. The spiral path those particles follow along a "line" obey the vectors of the single field theory. additionally, the plasmasphere contains charged particles trapped by the Earth's magnetic field that co-rotate with Earth's magnetic field.

Just food for thought...

PW
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 126
That does not represent my experiment.
<snip>

Yes Brad, I know. What I did was verify the experiment we were discussing prior to you joining the discussion and telling us our model is wrong. You went on to explain things and I paraphrased.

 
Hi Brad,
As I understand your theory, there is a neutral zone outside the middle of the magnet where no induction or force occurs due to the magnetic field.

I can't seem to get you to address obvious demonstrations that contradict your neutral zone. There is demonstrable force and induction where you claim none can be.
bi
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4673


Buy me some coffee
Yes Brad, I know. What I did was verify the experiment we were discussing prior to you joining the discussion and telling us our model is wrong. You went on to explain things and I paraphrased.

 
I can't seem to get you to address obvious demonstrations that contradict your neutral zone. There is demonstrable force and induction where you claim none can be.
bi

There is no induction that occurs at the center point of a PM when tested as i stated.
When running the coil as in your experiment, from one end of the magnet, to the other end, the EMF value across the coil at the center point is 0, which means no induction is taking place at the center point.
Nor will any ferromagnetic material stick to the center of the PMs body, but will stick to any point either side of the center, regardless of which way the field vectors are going.

Also noted by yourself in your last reply, you agree that a ferromagnetic core would distort these field vectors anyway--as i stated many times before.

You also say there is no neutral zone at the center, but instead say this point along the magnets length has a detent?
A detent is a mechanical or magnetic means to resist or arrest the movement of a mechanical device.
Can you please show what this detent looks like in the center of the magnetic field, between the two poles, if there is no change to the field along the length of the field.

Can you also give an example as to where or how the two field theory does not work, and how the single field theory explains what the magnetic field actually is?

Thanks

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4673


Buy me some coffee
Ok, below is a diagram of two charged capacitor plates.
As can be seen, the fields look exactly the same as that of a PM.
Also can be seen is the neutral point at the center of the field, where both the positive and negative charges are of equal value, thus creating a neutral zone, where there is not net charge value (yellow area), but where both fields still exist.

So i ask, why is it not possible for this field around a PM, not to be a separation of some form of charge, like that of the two capacitor plates?
And would this not also explain clearly what the magnetic field is, and why like poles repel, and unlike poles attract, exactly as they would with the capacitor plates.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 152
Excuse me for butting in, gentlemen.

Bi, several times you have referred to your experiment here https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4661.msg112029#msg112029  but I think that experiment may be flawed. The bloch wall, or whatever nomenclature you choose to use for it, is an almost microscopically thin section of the magnetic field. Correct? A single strand of your copper wire is probably thicker. A multi layer coil passed over the area will be largely influenced by both poles as it passes by the bloch wall, never reading only the bloch wall by itself.

Just as a thought, maybe repeating your experiment using a very long bar magnet and a single strand of very fine wire exactly perpendicular to the magnet would show more meaningful results?



---------------------------
'Tis better to try and fail than never try at all
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 126

When running the coil as in your experiment, from one end of the magnet, to the other end, the EMF value across the coil at the center point is 0, which means no induction is taking place at the center point.
<snip>
Thanks

Brad

Brad,
I've said the coil side is perpendicular to the axis of the magnet.
At the middle of magnet on the outside, the magnetic field is strong and parallel to the axis.
I'll try to devise a way to suspend the magnet and hang a current carrying conductor from its middle a snap a pic. That will prove the existence of the detent. I don't have a way to move the coil side per the green arrow and document the induced voltage but can see it plainly on the voltmeter shown in the photo, where the magnetic axis is vertical.
Regards,
bi
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 126
Excuse me for butting in, gentlemen.

Bi, several times you have referred to your experiment here https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4661.msg112029#msg112029  but I think that experiment may be flawed. The bloch wall, or whatever nomenclature you choose to use for it, is an almost microscopically thin section of the magnetic field. Correct? A single strand of your copper wire is probably thicker. A multi layer coil passed over the area will be largely influenced by both poles as it passes by the bloch wall, never reading only the bloch wall by itself.

Just as a thought, maybe repeating your experiment using a very long bar magnet and a single strand of very fine wire exactly perpendicular to the magnet would show more meaningful results?

Hi Cadman,

There is no Bloch Wall (or whatever) so I won't answer your first question.
But I am addressing the area outside of the magnet at or near the middle.
I feel the #24 wire is thin enough.
Thanks for your input.
bi
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1690
In order to view whatever fields exist around a PM, it is my opinion that there is no better media to measure with than an electron.  With an older non-digital scope that uses a CRT, the electron beam that produces the centered horizontal beam with no vertical input would seem to be ideal.  Below are pix of what I am proposing.

The stacked neo's are held against the screen by a mostly composite clamp that does contain some ferrous material so I'm sure this is affecting the traces somewhat, but the basic influence is what is important.  The polarity of the PM assembly is kept the same horizontally from the vertical position below the center line to above the center line.

IMO, the trace deflections can be explained by Lorentz forces and there is no indication of any flux line/field break or neutral point anywhere along the sides of the PM assembly.

I will also attempt a similar experiment with two charged parallel capacitor plates to see what influence exists for comparison.

Comments?

Regards,
Pm   
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4673


Buy me some coffee
In order to view whatever fields exist around a PM, it is my opinion that there is no better media to measure with than an electron.  With an older non-digital scope that uses a CRT, the electron beam that produces the centered horizontal beam with no vertical input would seem to be ideal.  Below are pix of what I am proposing.

The stacked neo's are held against the screen by a mostly composite clamp that does contain some ferrous material so I'm sure this is affecting the traces somewhat, but the basic influence is what is important.  The polarity of the PM assembly is kept the same horizontally from the vertical position below the center line to above the center line.

IMO, the trace deflections can be explained by Lorentz forces and there is no indication of any flux line/field break or neutral point anywhere along the sides of the PM assembly.

I will also attempt a similar experiment with two charged parallel capacitor plates to see what influence exists for comparison.

Comments?

Regards,
Pm   

Hi Pm

It seems to me that the steel rod in your clamp is distorting the field.
In one pic, the beam is being pushed away from the center of the magnet stack, and in the other pic, it is being drawn toward the center of the magnet stack.
In both cases, it seems the beam is being deflected away by the steel rod in your clamp.

Added--could you not just stand the scope up vertically, and sit the magnets on the screen, and do away with the clamp?

Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2666
It seems to me some are confusing the concept of a neutral plane or axis with other concepts.

Here is what we know, the geometric neutral axis (GNA) and Magnetic neutral axis (MNA) shown below are recognized scientific terms relating to armature reaction. It doesn't matter if some don't like the concept or accept the science. It's a proven concept and it is what it is. As well, my diagram of the induced magnetic polarity in iron cores agrees perfectly with the GNA and MNA concepts. In fact, I modified the MNA picture so it looks more like my own. This isn't rocket science and all were doing is showing how the magnetic polarization changes in a material.


So when people removed the armature or iron core material from between the poles then there is really nothing left to polarize. It's no wonder there not getting the results they want because they changed the experiment.

AC










---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 126
Brad,
I've said the coil side is perpendicular to the axis of the magnet.
At the middle of magnet on the outside, the magnetic field is strong and parallel to the axis.
I'll try to devise a way to suspend the magnet and hang a current carrying conductor from its middle a snap a pic. That will prove the existence of the detent.

I suspended the magnet using a plastic clamp and vinyl tape from the shop light above the bench. The red mark is at the N end. You can see the coil hanging held in place by the vertical Lorentz force. The coil side is mid way and perpendicular to the magnetic axis.
bi
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 126
It seems to me some are confusing the concept of a neutral plane or axis with other concepts.
<snip>
So when people removed the armature or iron core material from between the poles then there is really nothing left to polarize. It's no wonder there not getting the results they want because they changed the experiment.

AC

Hello AC,

This is the experiment which I explained to Pm when Tinman joined and stated that explanation was wrong due to a neutral zone where no force exists.

https://youtu.be/F2JFDpTE_ls?si=2g99IYutjPxdCyBY

Where is the iron core or where would it be? The wire is the armature and the magnet provides the field. It is a basic motor, converting electric energy to mechanic energy, in its simplest form.
bi
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4673


Buy me some coffee
Hello AC,

This is the experiment which I explained to Pm when Tinman joined and stated that explanation was wrong due to a neutral zone where no force exists.

https://youtu.be/F2JFDpTE_ls?si=2g99IYutjPxdCyBY

Where is the iron core or where would it be? The wire is the armature and the magnet provides the field. It is a basic motor, converting electric energy to mechanic energy, in its simplest form.
bi

So, we have the pictured below situation--a figure 8  :-X

It is not a motor at all, as even if the wire could pass through the magnet, it will stop at the neutral zone, which is the surface of the magnet at the center of the magnet.
Motors are designed so as like poles repel, and unlike poles attract. A motor is never designed to use the center between the two fields of a magnet, as that portion of the field is neutral, where neither a south or north field would be attracted to it, due to it applying equal and opposite forces = neutral.

And on your coil/ neutral experiment, there is no way you can replicate my coil/core in the center of the magnet example, as your coil is far bigger than the magnet, and your magnet oriented wrong to the coil.

To Quote Poynt  (The net induced voltage in the center coil is nil because the positive-induced and negative-induced voltages are simultaneous, equal in amplitude, but in opposite polarity, and therefore they cancel each other out.)

Now, is that not a neutral zone? Equil in amplitude, but opposite in !polarity! = A net value of 0.

I have never said the fields are not there, they are just neutral- a point in the fields that can do no work, such as induction.
The north and south fields can attract and align the magnetic domains withing a ferromagnetic material, but the center of the fields cannot, because the two fields are applying equal and opposite forces on the magnetic domains/electrons within the ferromagnetic material.


Brad




---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 126
Using Google.

How does an electric motor work in physics?

An electric motor works based on the interaction between magnetic fields and electric currents. When an electric current flows through a wire in the presence of a magnetic field, a force is exerted on the wire, causing it to move. In a simple electric motor, this principle is used to create rotational motion. The electric current is supplied to a loop of wire (the rotor) which is surrounded by a magnetic field. The interaction between the current and the magnetic field causes the rotor to spin, which can then be used to drive machinery or other mechanical systems. This is a basic explanation of how an electric motor works in physics. 

from Quora.com

___________

Electric motor, any of a class of devices that convert electrical energy to mechanical energy, usually by employing electromagnetic phenomena.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/electric-motor

_______


Electric motors work due to a phenomenon called the motor effect.

from: https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/physics/electricity/electric-motor/

Web search for motor effect:

The motor effect is a fundamental concept in physics that describes the interaction between an electric current and a magnetic field, leading to the generation of a force.


_______


A simple generator and a simple electric motor have very similar designs ... - Vaia
A simple generator converts mechanical energy into electrical energy, whereas a simple electric motor converts electrical energy into mechanical energy.

from: https://www.vaia.com/en-us/textbooks/physics/the-physics-of-everyday-phenomena-a-conceptual-introduction-to-physics-6-edition/chapter-14/problem-29-a-simple-generator-and-a-simple-electric-motor-ha/


_______

Scientifically speaking, the electric motor is a unit used to convert electric power into motive energy or electrical energy into mechanical energy.

from:
https://www.nidec.com/en/technology/motor/basic/00001/

_______

This could go on all day. I will not argue about the definition of electric motor. Others are welcome to.
bi
« Last Edit: 2024-05-16, 19:45:38 by bistander »
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 126

<snip>
And on your coil/ neutral experiment, there is no way you can replicate my coil/core in the center of the magnet example, as your coil is far bigger than the magnet, and your magnet oriented wrong to the coil.

<snip>
Brad

Brad,
I'm not trying to replicate your experiment. I object to you saying that my explanation to Pm in my reply #30 is wrong because there is no magnetic field at the midpoint along the side of the magnet. I believe I have demonstrated that there is.
bi
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3217
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
It seems to me that part of the debate here is a result of differing perspectives. Some are using the magnet as a reference, and others are using the coupled device (i.e. coil) as their reference. I think it is important to keep this in mind and clearly distinguish between the two. We should be able to agree on the following 2 points:

- From the perspective of the magnet itself and its inherent field, there exists no internal or external null or neutral zone along its length. The field is continuous and unbroken from end-to-end. The external field can be diverted but not broken.

- From the perspective of the coupled device (coil or wire), there exists a degree of net induced voltage that is dependent upon its orientation and relative position along the length of the magnet during the induction (changing field) process.

So how we choose to couple the magnet and coupling device together has a significant impact on the net induced voltage in the coupled device. The "how" includes:

1) the relative axis orientation and position along the magnet
2) the distance between the two
3) the strength of the B field in the magnet
4) the number of turns and core type of the coil
5) the velocity at which the relative motion occurs


---------------------------
"Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe." Frank Zappa
   
Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1690
Hi Pm

It seems to me that the steel rod in your clamp is distorting the field.
In one pic, the beam is being pushed away from the center of the magnet stack, and in the other pic, it is being drawn toward the center of the magnet stack.
In both cases, it seems the beam is being deflected away by the steel rod in your clamp.

Added--could you not just stand the scope up vertically, and sit the magnets on the screen, and do away with the clamp?

Brad

Hi Brad,

OK, I took your suggestion to position the scope vertically and here are the results.  There is a slight amount of ferrous material around the scope bezel so I had to use a small amount of sticky material to keep the PM from migrating toward the edges.  I didn't quite get the top and bottom PM positions identical to the center line so I hope that is OK!

Regards,
Pm
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 126

- From the perspective of the magnet itself and its inherent field, there exists no internal or external null or neutral zone along its length. The field is continuous and unbroken from end-to-end. The external field can be diverted but not broken.


This is exactly my point.
Thank you.
bi
   
Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2666
Poynt99
Quote
From the perspective of the magnet itself and its inherent field, there exists no internal or external null or neutral zone along its length.

The internal bloch wall is defined as a narrow transition region at the boundary between magnetic domains, over which the magnetization changes from its value in one domain to that in the next. In effect, the boundary between the domains must become neutral in order for the magnetic field to transition. A magnetic boundary is very important and relates to your next statement.

The field is continuous and unbroken from end-to-end. The external field can be diverted but not broken.

This is simply an artifact from the misleading lines and loops model which is not real but imaginary. In fact, the field cannot be continuous because we have already established that it must "transition" between each internal domain or boundary condition. The term quanta should come to mind where it was established that nothing is in fact continuous.

Consider what I know you already know. If we place many capacitors in series all the connection wires between the capacitors become neutral points. So each capacitor looks like this (-)plate>>>dielectric<<<(+)plate.
However in series we get this, (-)plate>>>dielectric<<<(+-)>>>dielectric<<<(+).
The connection wires between the capacitors becomes a neutral point (+-) where the two polarities cancel in effect producing a one capacitor with a greater distance between the outer plates having twice the voltage. Have you ever considered the exact mechanism as to how this happens?. It's quite remarkable if we think about it.

In fact, this same field addition/neutralization process occurs whether it is an electric, magnetic or gravic field. In some sense it has literally nothing to do with fields but more so logic and reason. This is how I discovered all this stuff happening under the surface in the first place. You see, logically we cannot claim something made a transition from state A to state B without a transition point through something which is neither A nor B. Consider the zero crossing we have all seen countless times on our oscilloscopes, why call it a "zero crossing"?. What does everyone think "zero" means?.

How this concept has eluded so many people for so long eludes me...

AC











---------------------------
Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman
   

Group: Elite Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 4673


Buy me some coffee
Quote
author=poynt99 link=topic=4661.msg112178#msg112178 date=1715865886


Quote
- From the perspective of the coupled device (coil or wire), there exists a degree of net induced voltage that is dependent upon its orientation and relative position along the length of the magnet during the induction (changing field) process.

So, as we mostly use coupled devices when it comes to things like electromagnetic induction, electric motors-etc, you would agree, although the field still exists (as i have stated many times now), the value of induction at the center point of the field along the length of a magnet, would have an equal and opposite value, and result in no induction taking place.
So to be clear, the value of the field entering the core of an inductor at the mid point of the PMs field between poles, is the exact same value of the field exiting the core at the same point, meaning that the net value of the field within the core is 0? If so, is this not a neutral point within the field as i have claimed?, where the field cannot provide a net induced field into the core of the coil.

Secondly- If we take a conductive plate, such as may be used to collect charge, and we have a positive charge impacting that plate on one face of the plate, and an equal negative charge impacting the same plate on the opposite face, what would be the net charge value on the plate?

-
Quote
From the perspective of the magnet itself and its inherent field, there exists no internal or external null or neutral zone along its length.

This is not correct.
From the perspective total fields of a PM, there exists a neutral point at the center of the PMs body between poles, at the surface of the PMs body.
Even the accepted field theory shows this to be true, which is why, say a transformer laminate, will not even stick to the center of the PM body, between the poles.


Brad


---------------------------
Never let your schooling get in the way of your education.
   
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-05-23, 06:22:08