----------------------------
Ken S. Tucker said:
Mr. Kelly, I've been doing electrical engineering
since the 60's, what I'm curious about is the
*fundamental* physical science. It may surprise
you but the answers to the question of relating
mechanical energy conversion to electrical
energy, such as in a generator, are an important
issue in the General Theory of Relativity.
A similiar problem exists in a simple transformer,
that is, is it quantized or a continuum field effect?
So I think the OP raises some interesting issues
and has advanced thoughts about that.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
Don said:
----------------------------
Ken S. Tucker said:
Don Kelly wrote:
...
Sounds good to me, I think a transformer
is basically a "quantum mechanical" device,
if it's examined in detail. I think your ideas
are very reasonable and advanced.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
What nonsense. Increase frequency, reduce core flux for a given
voltage
and
number of turns , so make a smaller core at the original flux density.
Nothing to do with Chris's rubbish. Much to do with Faraday.
Don Kelly
[email protected]
Your moving *power* from the primary to
the secondary coil, power is quantized.
For simple electrical applications you
don't need to know or understand that.
Don, you seem knowledgeable enough
to even model a 40 watt light bulb to see
what I'm getting at. Keep the rate of photons
emitted constant, but double their frequency,
then your output power would be 80 watts.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker
1)What photons? Their presence in transformer action, "virtual" or not,
is a
conjecture which requires a leap of faith without justification. Does
that
mean that increasing the temperature of the transformer increases the
power
transfer due to increased photon emission? [no]. Can one make a
transformer
such that any possible photon path between windings is blocked but the
transformer still works? [yes]
2)Note that doubling the supply frequency does not increase the power
transfer in a transformer. The effect of frequency on any given
transformer
is well known and covered in many texts.
3) As I said before, from Faraday, you can come up with (as does any
basic
text on Electromagnetic machines) a relationship between voltage,
magnetic
flux, frequency and turns. No photons needed. Note that the relationship
does NOT involve power or need to invoke (incorrectly) quantum
mechanics.
4) Considering the characteristics of the magnetic core, then it is also
easy to show that there is an ampere turn balance. Taking this into
account with (3), you end up with a power transfer relationship which ,
lo
and behold, incidentally agrees with conservation of energy. Do these
non-quantum approaches work? [extremely well].
Are they simpler to use? [very much so].
Quantum mechanics is all very well but there are areas, and this is one,
where this tool is not appropriate.
--
Don Kelly
[email protected]
remove the X to answer
At the "microscopic" level, quantum mechanics is applicable. However its
usefulness at the macroscopic level is very questionable. I would suggest
that there is a point where continuum mechanics are needed to handle the
problem in that one is dealing with extremely many particles at different
energy levels and cannot distinguish between them but where the overall
behaviour can be well represented by continuum mechanics. Is the magnetic
field any more imaginary than a virtual photon? I have doubts. How much
have you done using circuit theory? Why would you use it instead of EM
theory? Why isn't EM theory used in the design and analysis of
electromechanical machines?- it can be done and I did use it successfully
for analysis/testing of a special motor in my PhD thesis work at U of
Illinois. The answer to the questions is that there is, generally, no
need to do so- the first order approximations of a quasi static situation
work extremely well at the frequencies involved and dimensions well below
1/4 wavelength. I have been involved professionally in Electrical
Engineering since the 50's. Admittedly that has produced some biases- among
which, looking for a complex explanation where a simple one suffices, is not
necessarily productive. Note that one thing that I presented to Chris was an
alternative but classical approach dealing with the interaction between
moving charges, leading to the Lorentz force equation (ignoring the
electrostatic term for convenience). This he has completely ignored. If he
had given it the consideration that I gave his earlier statements (or rather
those of his former prof -which make sense but provide nothing new) and
shown error- then I would not be so dismissive. Also part of the
dismissiveness is the statements he made about a photon shield around the
windings of a transformer- it turns out that apparently he may not have used
a closed shield or shorted turn-that makes quite a difference -but also has
no data indicating that there is any of the assumed reduction in losses.
Sorry, one can only suspend disbelief for so long.
I also note that General Relativity as expressed by Einstein, has no
relationship to quantum mechanics (which he didn't believe in) and quantum
mechanics is hopeless when trying to look at large scale phenoma in
galaxies. In fact there likely is some unified theory (note "theory) which
explains it all. String theory seems to be the "in" thing.
Chris's contribution is that he has jogged some discussion and thought- no
more.
You are more of a gentleman than I am.
Dr. Don Kelly
[email protected]
remove the X to answer