Re: what motion? what velocity?
- From: phil-news-nospam@xxxxxxxx
- Date: 4 May 2009 01:57:44 GMT
On Sat, 2 May 2009 19:26:26 -0700 Don Kelly <dhky@xxxxxxx> wrote:
| And what if this supposed to prove? Suppose that the coil was turned
| independently of the magnet- look at the field and note that the induced
| voltage in one side of the coil is cancelled by the voltage induced in the
| other side so a null response doesn't mean anything.
First, it depends on which way you turn the coil, to answer your question.
In my example, I don't intend to turn the coil. I am sure there are plenty
of orientations and turning axis that would have opposing induction and no
net usable induced potential in a coil loop.
| Also, somehow, there must be a magnetic field external to the magnets-
| closed magnetic path. Now, with the configuration that you have given- you
| have apparently only considered the field between the magnets- not the field
| external to the larger magnet or internal to the smaller magnet. In
| particular, in the latter case, unless the magnetic pipes were quite short,
| the internal field would be quite low-near zero and that would mean that
| the field between the magnets would also be near zero. Again null results
| and it appears that you have found a way to demagnetize the two magnets.
I can't say that this won't demagnetize the magnets. I have not explored how
that happens, yet. I am, right now, exploring geometric configurations.
The configuration I have is variations of the Helmholtz coil. If permanent
magnets would be demagnetized when used in place of coils for the Helmholtz
configuration, then I guess this configuration would demagnetize, too.
|> So all the FHG derivatives I'm designing are based on the notion that the
|> magnetic field stays with the magnet, and that any effects of crossing a
|> conductor are based on motion relative between the magnet (and its field)
|> and the conductor.
|
| So, what's new? Except that you seem to come up with the most impractical
| approaches than any I have seen elsewhere. It appears that you want to have
| fixed contacts on the disk- fair enough - but you ignore the bulk of the
| flux path and make poor use of the magnets-this can be overcome but it also
| adds complications- for a Faraday disk machine which is not very practical
| in the first case because other alternatives are better.
At all points along the coil, there is a magnetic field crossing that coil at
a right angle to the coil conductors. The remaining right angles for all such
points are all in the same direction (along the length of the pipes from which
the magnet shapes are derived). If the entire assembly is moved in that
direction, AND if the magnetic field does NOT move with the magnets, then the
coil is cutting across field at such an angle that the induced potential will
be around the coil in the same "around" direction. If necessary for you to
visualize this, I could describe it with specific poles and polarities based
on Fleming's right hand rule.
Since I believe magnetic fields DO move with motion of magnets, it is for that
reason I believe the construction will NOT induce electric potential. However,
there is a corollary that will result in induced potential under my belief.
That configuration is to have the magnets made from MUCH longer segments of
the two sized pipes. Of course this makes the problem of the "return field"
more severe on the inner magnet (pipe), since it's path is on the inside of
the magnet. For as long as the coils is inside a viable field, moving it
should induce a potential.
This configuration is certainly impractical for production of electricity on
any usable scale ... if my belief in "field moves with magnet" is true. If
my belief is wrong, then it can produce electricity by merely moving the whole
assembly. And if moving the whole assembly is all that is needed, then it is
just a matter of making the assembly shorter in that "length of pipe" angle
which gives a clean wide path for the "return field lines" to go from the
inside of the inner pipe segment, around the entire assembly, and back around
to the outside of the outer pipe segment. Then you just move the whole pipe
assembly as a single unit, which the Earth's rotation can do for you, giving
you electricity as free as having a piece of land big enough to rigidly attach
the assembly to the Earth. Of course, I don't believe this will work since I
believe the field moves with the magnet.
I hope you are visualizing the same geometric configuration that I am.
If you are visualizing something different, then all bets are off.
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: what motion? what velocity?
- From: Don Kelly
- Re: what motion? what velocity?
- References:
- what motion? what velocity?
- From: phil-news-nospam
- Re: what motion? what velocity?
- From: Don Kelly
- what motion? what velocity?
- Prev by Date: Re: Errante's capacitive RF earth grounding system
- Next by Date: Re: what motion? what velocity?
- Previous by thread: Re: what motion? what velocity?
- Next by thread: Re: what motion? what velocity?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
