Maker Pro
Maker Pro

New Inductance

D

daestrom

Jan 1, 1970
0
Ken S. Tucker said:
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.

The frequency distribution of the photons emitted from a light bulb is
totally *unrelated* to the frequency of the AC current flowing through the
filament.

The only way to double the frequency of the 'average' photon from an
incandescent light bulb is to change the filament's temperature. For a
flourescent bulb, you would need to change out the internal gas.

But neither would require changes in the applied current's frequency.

daestrom
 
T

The Real Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
A shorted turn of very low resistance takes no power and acts as a
reflector.

Standard EM theory.
Chris.
 
T

The Real Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
I think I did not work out the diameters right but the practical design used
a 1/4" copper pipe with water flowing through it.

The toroid was a bit bigger that the 0.5 cm inner hole, it must have been 5
cm hole with a 2 cm tube.

The starter was a 12 volt car battery with a diac switch and a tuning
capqacitor of 0.1 uF at 2000 volts.

The initial pulse was 300 amps. Hydrogen at 3mm pressure was put in the
tube.

Push button start worked first time! 3KW.

I put them on the market but a clever idiot doctor wrecked it and chopped me
brain out.

The whole human race then completely lost the fusion engine and poisoned
itself with carbon dioxide instead.

The human race is absolutely mad.

Chop! Your wrong Ha Ha.

Chris.
 
T

The Real Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don Kelly said:
-----
You have been through this all before. The problem is that you have shown
nothing new or exciting.
True

I have, on hand, an engineering textbook, which evaluates the forces on
moving charges in terms of the electric field.
For charge e1 moving at velocity v1 and charge v2 moving at velocity v2
F=(1/c^2)(q1v1 X(v2 X E21) where E21 is the electric field at q2 due to q1
Define B= (1/c^2)(v2 X E21) and you get
F=q1(v1 X B ) which is the Lorentz force equation (ignoring coulomb
force)

There is no "magnetic" field connected to an isolated moving charge. The
lorenz force requires both a moving charge close to a fixed charge of the
opposite sign.

That whole book you read out from is based on the wrong principle.
A brief, less than one page, analysis then the text gets on to useful
electromagnetics in terms of measurable quantities .
This particular reference was originally written 40 years ago and the
material has been know and observed in physics for far longer. You have
added nothing except conjecture.

40 years out of date, based on wrong concepts based on faulty observations
300 yrars ago by perfectionists mathmeticians of the logically flawed
pythagorean school.

We use the concept of a "Gin".
Now how is a virtual photon any more real than a magnetic field. Can you
detect such a photon? The only reason to consider a photon is that some
cannot conceive of a force without a mechanical interaction so come up
with something virtual which can go bump in the night.

It is just an alternative that works better based on modern physics around
fynaman.

There is no basis in physics for a magnetic field. None.

My brain removal does not help and the malignant killer who did it deserves
to be beheaded. Now!
 
D

Don Kelly

Jan 1, 1970
0
----------------------------
Ken S. Tucker said:
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.
 
P

Phat Bytestard

Jan 1, 1970
0
phatbytestard (aka Dimbulb, aka Roy L. Fuchs)@getinmahharddrive.org
says...
Back to Phat Bytstard, eh DimBulb?

Spelling issues? Even when it is right in front of your face.
Figures.
 
P

Phat Bytestard

Jan 1, 1970
0
A shorted turn of very low resistance takes no power and acts as a
reflector.

ANY shorted turn on a transformer takes ALL of its power capacity,
and renders it a mere heat generating device.
 
D

Don Kelly

Jan 1, 1970
0
----------------------------
The Real Chris said:
There is no "magnetic" field connected to an isolated moving charge. The
lorenz force requires both a moving charge close to a fixed charge of the
opposite sign.
--------
1) what part of what I said do you not understand? Note that the first
equation represents mathematically what has been measured.
2)Since when does the Lorentz force reduce to this? You have given no basis
for this, nor can you (particularly the opposite sign part). It is,
however, relatively easy to disprove this experimentally. Are you confusing
the coulomb force component of the Lorentz force with the "magnetic"
component- it appears so.
That whole book you read out from is based on the wrong principle.

40 years out of date, based on wrong concepts based on faulty observations
300 yrars ago by perfectionists mathmeticians of the logically flawed
pythagorean school.
-----
Since none of the observations made by anyone 300 years ago have any bearing
on this, what is your point? Where have the concepts failed to explain
observed behaviour? In what way are they wrong, except that you say so.
------
We use the concept of a "Gin".


It is just an alternative that works better based on modern physics around
fynaman.
------------
Ok then, you want to substitute a ficticious "virtual photon" which cannot
be measured or detected for a ficticious magnetic field which is easily
measured or detected. Then you want people to swallow ideas that do not
work and will not work (i.e. the shield concept and your private version of
the Lorentz force equation) on the basis of your misconceptions. By the way,
the name is Feynman, not fynaman.

No way.
You are a troll, or as you say of yourself,
"My brain removal does not help"


--

Don Kelly [email protected]
remove the X to answer

-------------
 
K

krw

Jan 1, 1970
0
Spelling issues? Even when it is right in front of your face.
Figures.

Truth is king, tupos aside.

You *ARE* Roy L. Fuchhead in a recycled nym (I was wondering when
you'd change, though even I thought you'd be more original). I'm
just warning the uninitiated that you're still the same idiot.
 
T

The Real Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hello,

Ok measure the magnectic field due to beam of electrons.

Ok measure force on a electrostatically charged object close to an
electrically neutral wire carrying one amp dc.

And compare with the predictions of your theory.

Oh and send me some magnetic field in an envelope, please use a stamp.

What is the mass of a magnetic field?

Did you know that the mass of a photon is hf/c^2 you can measure it by using
a mirror system with some trapped photons inside and measure the increase as
you add photons, use a gravity pico gram balance.

Magnitic field! Bah science fiction! Farady did not know special relativity
or quantum mechanics - bless his soul!
Oh by the way a shorted turn takes no power unless its resistance is
substantially more than zero. As in a wave guide it is a reflector.

I think we all know that high frequency transformers are more efficient and
smaller the low frequency ones. The greatest loss in a transformer is the
iron core which I maintain is unesseccary as the high permeabilty is only
needed betwen the windings and the photons are carried by spin-spin
interactions.

Photon shield between windings (called an electrostatic screen) is
influenced by skin depth which at 50 hertz is quite long. A shorted screen
between layers of windings would make the transformer non functional.

Quit arguing and go about and build a simple one and do some simple
measurements.

Oh by the way: How many half brains make one?

Chris.
 
P

Phat Bytestard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Photon shield between windings (called an electrostatic screen) is
influenced by skin depth which at 50 hertz is quite long.

The transformer examples I gave operate at 150kHz and use ferrite
cores. Doesn't matter though. A shorted turn still renders the entire
transformer useless, and yes, it does use power.
 
T

The Real Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
Try nearly zero.

If you look at the corrrect page you see the derivation. The velocity is not
required to calculate its effect. It is a well known result taught at my
uni.

And the quantum mechanics comes from standard results origiating in
microwave physics but it applies at all frequencies the frequency of the
qaunta is the driving freqency a well knowen result.
 
T

The Real Chris

Jan 1, 1970
0
Yes no problem at all. I did not have the copper pot round it though. It was
a while ago so I might have a go and make another. What is special about it
any way? It pretty damm obvious to me!

I might find the iron filings and potting compound difficult now I'm
retired.

Chris.
 
P

Phat Bytestard

Jan 1, 1970
0
So I think the OP raises some interesting issues
and has advanced thoughts about that.
Regards

Nope. He is merely making shit up as he goes along.

Remember, this is the twit that wants us to place "some flux" in an
envelope and send it to him.

He lacks some *very* basic electrical theory understanding to make
statements like that.
 
D

Don Kelly

Jan 1, 1970
0
----------------------------
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
 
P

Paul Hovnanian P.E.

Jan 1, 1970
0
Phat said:
Nope. He is merely making shit up as he goes along.

Remember, this is the twit that wants us to place "some flux" in an
envelope and send it to him.

When I used to work for Boeing, these were the guys we'd send out to
fetch a bucket of prop wash.
 
Top