Connect with us

New Inductance

Discussion in 'Electrical Engineering' started by The Real Chris, Jul 15, 2006.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Skenny

    Skenny Guest

    Hee hee
    Before you jump on me for bottom/top/side/whatever posting just wanted to
    say that was a pretty good snide remark. made me chuckle.
    Keep up the good work floyd.
    "I only need this lamp, and thats all I need."
  2. Don Kelly

    Don Kelly Guest

    First of all, it IS a transformer. For your information, there are
    distribution transformers built with glass ferrite cores -essentially a
    well designed version of what Chris has mentioned. These are quite
    satisfactory and have some advantages in terms of core losses. Secondly,
    many a lineman has been killed when he closed a secondary "microvolt" "
    loop. Put 1KV on the primary, with the secondary open, so that 1 million
    microvolts can appear on the secondary-even without a ferromagnetic core.
    Do you know why there will be a high current in that case?
    You are correct on one thing- a straight through wire counts as a turn. All
    is not lost.

    Nobody, has suggested that this transformer is a good one. It may not be
    but not for the reasons that you present.
  3. Don Kelly

    Don Kelly Guest

    I admit the analogy was badly crippled-I haven't one that isn't.
    However, I do not have the same concern with regard to "relative" that you
    have. I do see what you are getting at and -yes- if one's velocity is the
    same as that of the moving charge- then one cannot observe the motion or
    effects of the motion and will not see a magnetic field. In that case, all
    one sees is an electrostatic field. fair enough. Does that make a magnetic
    field "imaginary" ?
    Possibly what is "real" depends on ones reference frame but we all work
    within our own reference frame which is rarely that of a moving charge
    (instantaneous velocity=??or a particle with 0 rest mass, momentum, and
    evanescent existence- possibly as a wave existing everywhere at once).
    An alternator (you know by now that my background is in machines and power-
    not electronics) is analysed on a reference frame that is rotating and the
    results can be tranformed to a stationary reference frame -in terms of what
    can be measured from outside without getting dizzy. Is this real? I think
    so. However there may be many aspects of reality- Kron dealt with this using
    tensor analysis and I once read a delightful and poetic book on relativity
    which also used tensor analysis.
    Photo electric effect, Millikan, quantum effects in semiconductors, tunnel
    diodes, etc. do support "quantum" ideas which are more basic than
    continuum ideas. However, where do the lines blur? I would suggest, as have
    others, that for the majority of situations, as has been indicated by
    others, that most protons, virtual or otherwise are low energy and classical
    methods work just as well.
    Going back to a previous rhetorical question, one could use full blown EM
    theory to solve a circuit problem-getting the same result, with much more
    work, than using circuit theory which is a quasi-static approximation.
    Continuum models may be a "quasi-static" approximation in the case of
    multiple particle interactions at multiple individual energy
    levels-resulting is a statistical blur with an immeasurable standard
    deviation- i.e. reduced to a deterministic model. Heisenberg uncertainty
    covers a lot of evils for an individual particle (even the direction of
    force involved with a virtual photon). Quantisation exists but we have no
    way that we can actually make use of this on a gross level.

    The problem with an inductor or transformer is that we are in this
    multi-particle, multi-energy situation. We could, in theory, come up with a
    multidimension model requiring, at least, an nxn matrix where n is in the
    order of quadrillions+. Now replace this with the result: "B"
    Convenient, very much so. Real? Apparently physics, even quantum physics,
    treats it as such. Does it go away if no-one is looking -after all, isn't
    that implicit in quantum mechanics (heisenberg)?

    Anyhow, have fun and always ask "why?"
  4. I'm not clever enough to answer.
  5. You're too tense.
  6. Don Kelly

    Don Kelly Guest

    We don't know if the field has any independent existance as the only way we
    detect it is in its effect on a moving charge. Inability to detect is not
    proof of non-existence. I also note that the force between two charges
    moving at the same velocity (parallel) does produce a force which is not
    just that due to Coulomb force. In any case the magnetic field concept is
    too useful to throw out.
    I think younger minds than mine will have to deal with this. I am in the
    stage where my understanding of physics is decreasing at a rate greater than
    that which can be accounted for by growth in the area.:)
  7. I said I no longer understand it.

Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day