FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Electromagnetics
New Inductance
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 7 [97 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Author Message
Skenny
science forum beginner


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:12 pm    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

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."

"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote in message
news:l6b0c2h69puqmi81tuk946j23kfj30cnn1@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:03:56 GMT, "The Real Chris" <me@myself.com
Gave us:

You don't know elementry physics.

You don't even know elementary spelling.

I'd bet that you wear your pants down past your asscrack too.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Back to top
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 5:35 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 21:21:08 -0500, Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net>
Gave us:

Quote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:56:11 GMT, Phat Bytestard
phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:38:23 -0500, Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net
Gave us:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:25:05 GMT, Phat Bytestard
phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:03:56 GMT, "The Real Chris" <me@myself.com
Gave us:

You don't know elementry physics.

You don't even know elementary spelling.

I'd bet that you wear your pants down past your asscrack too.

Pants?

Haven't you seen all these "modern" adolescent twit kids running
around these days with their pant hanging down past their ass?

It's the "in thing" nowadays. Personally, I think it is so Suzy
Sleesytwit and Johnny Jiztard can feel each other up easier.

You got young kids?

I meant, what makes you think this loon wears any?

Ahhh... The Emperor... The blind shall not see...

I fart in their DIRECT direction!

Ethel! You get yer clothes on!
Back to top
Bill Snyder
science forum beginner


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:21 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:56:11 GMT, Phat Bytestard
<phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote:

Quote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:38:23 -0500, Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net
Gave us:

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:25:05 GMT, Phat Bytestard
phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:03:56 GMT, "The Real Chris" <me@myself.com
Gave us:

You don't know elementry physics.

You don't even know elementary spelling.

I'd bet that you wear your pants down past your asscrack too.

Pants?

Haven't you seen all these "modern" adolescent twit kids running
around these days with their pant hanging down past their ass?

It's the "in thing" nowadays. Personally, I think it is so Suzy
Sleesytwit and Johnny Jiztard can feel each other up easier.

You got young kids?

I meant, what makes you think this loon wears any?

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Back to top
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:56 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:38:23 -0500, Bill Snyder <bsnyder@airmail.net>
Gave us:

Quote:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:25:05 GMT, Phat Bytestard
phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote:

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:03:56 GMT, "The Real Chris" <me@myself.com
Gave us:

You don't know elementry physics.

You don't even know elementary spelling.

I'd bet that you wear your pants down past your asscrack too.

Pants?

Haven't you seen all these "modern" adolescent twit kids running
around these days with their pant hanging down past their ass?

It's the "in thing" nowadays. Personally, I think it is so Suzy
Sleesytwit and Johnny Jiztard can feel each other up easier.

You got young kids?
Back to top
Bill Snyder
science forum beginner


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 38

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:38 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 01:25:05 GMT, Phat Bytestard
<phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote:

Quote:
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:03:56 GMT, "The Real Chris" <me@myself.com
Gave us:

You don't know elementry physics.

You don't even know elementary spelling.

I'd bet that you wear your pants down past your asscrack too.

Pants?

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Back to top
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:33 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:21:43 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> Gave us:

Quote:
Dear Phat Bytestard:

"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote in
message news:aiutb2lrmsfnth0jc5t9n9otvvr91l99sm@4ax.com...
...
Learn how to read and quote properly. Half of
your "responses" were to some other idiot's
posted writings.

"The Real Chris" appears to be posting from ignorance, however
much he wants to learn. You seem to be posting simply to be
abusive, and ignore any corrections to your own
misunderstandings.

LOOK, you retarded f***! YOU quoted HIM, but posted to ME. Get a
clue, dipshit!

Quote:

Rather than argue with you, I'll leave you in your self-imposed
darkness. Goodbye.

You're a fucking E-1 grade 30 IQ retard, at best.

Quote:

plonk

Oh boy, the dipshit thinks that his filter file edit announcement
means a fucking thing. What WOULD mean something is if your stupid
fucktard ass ever really learned a damned thing about Usenet.

Quote:

David A. Smith, a total fucking in the dark retard

Yes, you are.
Back to top
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:31 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 06:14:08 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> Gave us:

Quote:
I was pointing out to "The Real Chris" that a loop was formed by
closing the circuit.

Then don't do it with a fucking post that starts out with "Dear Phat
Bytestard" and "Phat Bytestard wrote:"

If you want to make remarks to him, FIND the post HE made them in
and REPLY to THAT post!

Learn how to use your news reader client correctly, and learn a bit
more about Usenet itself. Don't even claim to already know. If you
did, you wouldn't have made the post talking to me but referring to
some other person's posted material. You just don't so that dumb
s**t.
Back to top
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:25 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:03:56 GMT, "The Real Chris" <me@myself.com>
Gave us:

Quote:
You don't know elementry physics.

You don't even know elementary spelling.

I'd bet that you wear your pants down past your asscrack too.
Back to top
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:24 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 05:03:56 GMT, "The Real Chris" <me@myself.com>
Gave us:

Quote:
Ever seen a transformer used for X-ray generation? One winding is
five inches away from the other with a huge, tape wound core.


Photons can travel quite some distance. So no problem.

You're an idiot. Magnetic flux "travels" in the core and couples the
energy from one winding to the other. No stinking photons required.
We don' need no stinking photons in our REAL WORLD transformers!

Next thing ya know, you'll be tellin' us that dark matter, and dark
photons do the work.

Here's a hint.... wire + current flow = magnetic flux.

It has been proven, and has worked for several decades, totaling
well over a century!
Back to top
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:20 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On 19 Jul 2006 21:43:07 -0700, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca>
Gave us:

Quote:

Don Kelly wrote:
----------------------------
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1153202895.978168.226640@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Don Kelly wrote:
----------------------------
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1153146996.298346.270480@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
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 Kelly wrote:
----------------------------
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1153026113.273939.244240@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Don Kelly wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1152999190.140186.287000@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
...
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 dhky@shawcross.ca

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 dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

I'm uncertain if your questions are rhetorical,
in your post below, if so perhaps place them as ?!
OTOH repost your questions in a fashion that
is clearly non-rhetorical.

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.

I think it's an issue, not the poster I'm focused on.

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.

Maybe, GR assumes a continuum to interconvert
Mechanical and Electrical energy given by that
looks like the covariant derivatives,

T;w= 0 = M;w + E;w

where M;w = - E;w and T;w=0 is conservation.

I'm wondering if M;w =0 but not constant.
Regards
Ken

Yes some of the questions are rhetorical. You know the limits of circuit
theory. You know the advantages of it where it is valid.
As far as a magnetic field being dependent on moving electric fields - no
problem (in fact this is a common derivation) Now the interaction of charged
particles may well be due to particles -i.e the virtual photon which is:
a)not observable, b)an artifact of perturbation theory, c)may not even
exist except as a useful QED technique. I have no problem with this. As to
magnetic fields existing-they do and can be measured and analysed.

I'm careful, the magnetic field is a convenience,
what you end up doing is using a charged particle
to measure a relation between relatively moving
charges, that does NOT give the magnetic field
real existance, because velocity is relative.

The fact
that the effect called magnetism is caused by something else doesn't make it
unreal. I also note that some discussions of virtual photons try to explain
them in terms of waves, simplifying by ignoring magnetic moments. In
addition several quantum mechanics effects involve, directly, the use of
magnetic flux density-why?- because it is useful.

On the macroscopic level you can ignore the
fact a gas is composed of atoms, I'm in physics.

Now, as to electromechanical energy conversion, assuming that what you imply
by M;w and E:w as mechanical and electrical energy then one approach used
in the analysis of electromagnetic devices such as motors/transformer and
relays is conservation of energy along with the idea of virtual work (a form
of perturbation) .

Then :
change of mech energy out =f*delta(x) =change of electrical energy in +
change in magnetic energy stored +change in losses.

Ok, but the fundamental question is whether
or not thoses "changes" you refer to are quantized.
I would think so as we now regard energy as
quantized.

White & Woodson, of MIT in "Electromechanical Energy Conversion" dealt with
generalised machine models, involving use of the Hamiltonian and coordinate
transforms. Both electrostatic and electromagnetic conversion were
considered. Much of this was picked up by later authors. Gabriel Kron also
wrote a very difficult to follow text using tensor analysis. While these
authors were well aware of GR and Quantum mechanics, they did not deal with
them because there was no need to do so.

Ok, that sounds like engineering.

Certainly, in terms of semiconductors, quantum theory and energy levels are
important but for typical machines, classical electrodynamics is quite
adequate. It may well be that for nanomachines, this is not the case.
However, you appear to want to deal with GR and energy conversion- The
relationsips between GR and classical electrodynamics probably cover it.

The classical theories use continuous changes in
energy, while the Quantum Theory uses incremental
changes.

However, any exposure that I have had to GR, QED etc was quite a while ago
and I cannot and will not claim any expertise in those areas. Will I learn
more? Possibly, because of curiosity. Will I argue with the Real Chris-
probably not--not worth the effort.


What the *bleep* do we know anyway? (good movie).
Back to top
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 1:16 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:46:28 GMT, "Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> Gave us:

Quote:
"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote in message
news:v43rb21ei8ejqgdp3j7segksj5dmr8am99@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:34:56 GMT, "The Real Chris" <me@myself.com
Gave us:

By the way Faraday said the motor force is between the windings.

No, he didn't.

This is
similar.

No, it isn't.

The electronic interaction in a transformer is between the
windings. The closer they are the better.

Wrong. Interwinding capacitance becomes an issue.

AGAIN, I have made transformers, and so has the rest of the world
where the secondary MUST be segregated from the primary. They have
OVER 2kV isolation, and they are just as efficient as a transformer
where the windings are placed over each other.


Try two straight parallel wires in a resin filled with iron filings
carrying
alternating curent. It is still a 1:1 transformer. No bother with flux
path.

You're an idiot. A loop is REQUIRED. Two, in fact for
transformers.
--------
Sorry, Phat. In this case, Chris is right. The key to any transformer is
mutual coupling and the two parallel wires have this. Agreed, it is
difficult to actually put a current through one wire without actually having
a closed circuit or loop or to get some power transfer without closing a
loop in the second wire but the only part of these loops that counts for
transformer action is the mutual inductance. Note that a 500/1 current
transformer has a straight wire through a doughnut core as a primary.

Two key words. CORE, and THROUGH. That counts as one turn (loop).
The core counts as the medium through which the transference occurs.

His little metal bits in epoxy do not count as a core, and parallel
wires can inject microvolt amplitudes from one to the other, but
passing power? No.
Back to top
Don Kelly
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 166

PostPosted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:50 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

----------------------------
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1153370587.299974.51840@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Don Kelly wrote:
----------------------------
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1153202895.978168.226640@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Don Kelly wrote:
----------------------------
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1153146996.298346.270480@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
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 Kelly wrote:
----------------------------
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1153026113.273939.244240@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Don Kelly wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1152999190.140186.287000@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
...
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 dhky@shawcross.ca

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 dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

I'm uncertain if your questions are rhetorical,
in your post below, if so perhaps place them as ?!
OTOH repost your questions in a fashion that
is clearly non-rhetorical.

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.

I think it's an issue, not the poster I'm focused on.

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.

Maybe, GR assumes a continuum to interconvert
Mechanical and Electrical energy given by that
looks like the covariant derivatives,

T;w= 0 = M;w + E;w

where M;w = - E;w and T;w=0 is conservation.

I'm wondering if M;w =0 but not constant.
Regards
Ken

Yes some of the questions are rhetorical. You know the limits of circuit
theory. You know the advantages of it where it is valid.
As far as a magnetic field being dependent on moving electric fields - no
problem (in fact this is a common derivation) Now the interaction of
charged
particles may well be due to particles -i.e the virtual photon which is:
a)not observable, b)an artifact of perturbation theory, c)may not even
exist except as a useful QED technique. I have no problem with this. As
to
magnetic fields existing-they do and can be measured and analysed.

I'm careful, the magnetic field is a convenience,
what you end up doing is using a charged particle
to measure a relation between relatively moving
charges, that does NOT give the magnetic field
real existance, because velocity is relative.

The fact
that the effect called magnetism is caused by something else doesn't make
it
unreal. I also note that some discussions of virtual photons try to
explain
them in terms of waves, simplifying by ignoring magnetic moments. In
addition several quantum mechanics effects involve, directly, the use of
magnetic flux density-why?- because it is useful.

On the macroscopic level you can ignore the
fact a gas is composed of atoms, I'm in physics.

Now, as to electromechanical energy conversion, assuming that what you
imply
by M;w and E:w as mechanical and electrical energy then one approach
used
in the analysis of electromagnetic devices such as motors/transformer and
relays is conservation of energy along with the idea of virtual work (a
form
of perturbation) .

Then :
change of mech energy out =f*delta(x) =change of electrical energy in +
change in magnetic energy stored +change in losses.

Ok, but the fundamental question is whether
or not thoses "changes" you refer to are quantized.
I would think so as we now regard energy as
quantized.

White & Woodson, of MIT in "Electromechanical Energy Conversion" dealt
with
generalised machine models, involving use of the Hamiltonian and
coordinate
transforms. Both electrostatic and electromagnetic conversion were
considered. Much of this was picked up by later authors. Gabriel Kron
also
wrote a very difficult to follow text using tensor analysis. While these
authors were well aware of GR and Quantum mechanics, they did not deal
with
them because there was no need to do so.

Ok, that sounds like engineering.

Certainly, in terms of semiconductors, quantum theory and energy levels
are
important but for typical machines, classical electrodynamics is quite
adequate. It may well be that for nanomachines, this is not the case.
However, you appear to want to deal with GR and energy conversion- The
relationsips between GR and classical electrodynamics probably cover it.

The classical theories use continuous changes in
energy, while the Quantum Theory uses incremental
changes.

However, any exposure that I have had to GR, QED etc was quite a while
ago
and I cannot and will not claim any expertise in those areas. Will I
learn
more? Possibly, because of curiosity. Will I argue with the Real Chris-
probably not--not worth the effort.

Regards
Ken

The magnetic field may well be a convenience but it is what can be measured,
modified and controlled. A virtual proton which may well be its cause is
not subject to any of these factors. We are not measuring its origin. We
don't actually know the relative velocity of the particles but only the
effect.
The question is, "what is real?" Is it what we can sense or is it the
postulated basic mechanism?.
All I am suggesting is that the effect -i.e. what is commonly called a
magnetic field or "region of magnetic influence" exists. A car hits a pole
because the driver is drunk. The cause is the drunkedness of the driver, the
effect is the collision. Is the latter not real because it is not the prime
cause? (There is also a relative velocity involved which definitely has a
real effect on the results of the collision Smile)

As far as classical vs quantum ideas, what conditions are required so that
the quantisation can be detected?

I don't claim to know the answers -from some reading, I have some idea but
???
--

Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

>
Back to top
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:26 pm    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

The Real Chris wrote:
Quote:

Chris.
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44BFD8E6.7D66F5E5@hovnanian.com...
The Real Chris wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44BED924.70CEE88A@hovnanian.com...
The Real Chris wrote:

By the way Faraday said the motor force is between the windings.

Cite the source of that Faraday quote.

Furthermore, what about motors with only ONE winding?


{Don't top post. It makes you look illiterate.}

The other winding is electron spin.


So, how does the electron spin in a permanent magnet motor, for example,
produce torque interacting with the winding carrying current?

A permament magnet is a ferromagetic material where all the electron spins
line up to present the effect of a current loop.


True. But that's not what I asked. How does the electron spin 'current
loop' of the PM interact with the current carrying winding to produce
torque?

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matter cannot be created or destroyed, nor can it be returned without a
receipt.
Back to top
The Real Chris
science forum addict


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:39 pm    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

A permament magnet is a ferromagetic material where all the electron spins
line up to present the effect of a current loop.

Chris.
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44BFD8E6.7D66F5E5@hovnanian.com...
Quote:
The Real Chris wrote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44BED924.70CEE88A@hovnanian.com...
The Real Chris wrote:

By the way Faraday said the motor force is between the windings.

Cite the source of that Faraday quote.

Furthermore, what about motors with only ONE winding?


{Don't top post. It makes you look illiterate.}

The other winding is electron spin.


So, how does the electron spin in a permanent magnet motor, for example,
produce torque interacting with the winding carrying current?

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Faust, die Jung.
Back to top
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:26 pm    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

The Real Chris wrote:
Quote:

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44BED924.70CEE88A@hovnanian.com...
The Real Chris wrote:

By the way Faraday said the motor force is between the windings.

Cite the source of that Faraday quote.

Furthermore, what about motors with only ONE winding?


{Don't top post. It makes you look illiterate.}

Quote:
The other winding is electron spin.


So, how does the electron spin in a permanent magnet motor, for example,
produce torque interacting with the winding carrying current?

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Faust, die Jung.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 7 [97 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:25 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Electromagnetics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Inductance of a Straight Wire - Follow-up abukosky@muthco.com Electromagnetics 1 Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:37 pm
No new posts Is the "self-inductance of straight wire" an ill-defined ... Jean-Rene David Electromagnetics 22 Mon May 08, 2006 4:17 pm
No new posts Negative Inductance jclause Physics 3 Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:35 pm
No new posts Thermal Inductance s.morra Research 6 Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:11 pm
No new posts Thermal Inductance s.morra Physics 5 Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:22 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0463s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0066s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]