Lorentz Force versus Maxwell's equations, different laws yielding same results.

[solarlab]

Ofo,

I figured out the disjoint -

The fundamental Laws (Savat, Faraday, Lorentz, etc.) deal with primary actions
when, in Electrodynamics for example interact. E.G. a magnetic field and a conductor.

Now, many billions or trillions of these interactions (the Laws) make up things like how
a motor works.

Your trying to equate the two without going through the (long and complex) processes
between the fundamental interactions and their complex interactions as found in
applications such as a motor or an EE_TFG.

Both use the fundamental Laws; even though the applications (design, analysis and applications)
are quite different.

SL

[solarlab]

Ufo,

I figured out the disjoint -

really?

The fundamental Laws (Savat, Faraday, Lorentz, etc.) deal with primary actions
when, in Electrodynamics for example interact. E.G. a magnetic field and a conductor.

WOW, I am impressed!!

Now, many billions or trillions of these interactions (the Laws) make up things like how
a motor works.

Amazing!

Your trying to equate the two without going through the (long and complex) processes
between the fundamental interactions and their complex interactions as found in
applications such as a motor or an EE_TFG.

How stupid of me!...thanks!...Genius, complete genius!!

Both use the fundamental Laws; even though the applications (design, analysis and applications)
are quite different.

SL

I am amazed...

UP

Ufopolitics,

It's a some-what common problem. (Explaining physics to Engineers!)

People not familiar with fundamental Physics Laws do not appreciate the
underlying simple (very basic) interactions that make up these Laws.

However, it becomes important to know these laws when considering the
operations of different devices - a motor may use a different law than an
EE_TFG. [Faraday (Maxwell) versus Lorentz]

There is quite a bit of difference in how these devices operate and it's all
based on which fundamental law is employed initially.

Not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic in your post, or if you suddenly
realized the big difference between the micro-level physics laws,
and your macro-level explaination of "how a motor works."

However, it all boils down to the basic Electrodynamic Physics Laws.

SL

[Ufopolitics]

Ofo,

I figured out the disjoint -

SL, I will try to respond this time in a more detailed form and I promise not to be sarcastic 
Yes, You have figured it out, FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

The fundamental Laws (Savat, Faraday, Lorentz, etc.) deal with primary actions
when, in Electrodynamics for example interact. E.G. a magnetic field and a conductor.

Primary Actions MUST ALWAYS DERIVE/RESOLVE the Secondary Actions, In this case "The Complete Deletion of a Secondary Field", emerged/due to the "Primary Action" does NOT MATCH REALITY.

Now, many billions or trillions of these interactions (the Laws) make up things like how 
a motor works.

Well, no matter how many "trillions" you add up,  IF THE PRIMARIES WERE NOT CORRECT, then, no matter what, Secondaries (reality) would be wrong.

Your trying to equate the two without going through the (long and complex) processes
between the fundamental interactions and their complex interactions as found in applications such as a motor or an EE_TFG.

You are contradicting yourself above, according to you I am "jumping" the "Primary Actions"..or the primary equations, which is NOT exactly "the COMPLEX INTERACTIONS"...
Like I wrote before, no matter how many times you repeat the same "primary action(s)"...if they were WRONG from their ROOTS (from the beginning)...We will NEVER, EVER will have the CORRECT RESULTS, WHICH "SUPPOSEDLY MATCH THE REAL INTERACTIONS (on this case Magnetic Interactions)

Both use the fundamental Laws; even though the applications (design, analysis and applications) are quite different.
SL

The "Laws" should be able to "RECONCILE" APPROACHING the REAL APPLICATIONS very much so...otherwise, all it would bring is confusion plus wrong understanding of the phenomena.

Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Hello SL,

As an example of what I wrote previously (that if Primary Equations/Concepts are wrong, you would have a WRONG INTERPRETATION OF REALITY)

I would bring a previous post from you:

"Second B-Field" ? Never hear of such a thing, especially in an "Laws" that I've ever seen or studied.

You just can't make stuff up to suit your explainations, etc. - best to stick to the known laws as
they are presented.

So, I can not answer your question - maybe it's valid and I've just never heard of it... ever -
not even sure what a "second b-field" would be! In a design all the fields run together...

SL

Because you never answered my previous question: "What is the B-Field?"...I would respond it for you, because the proper info you will find by a "quick online search" would never be a detailed explanation like this:

A B-FIELD IS A MAGNETIC LINEAR VECTOR, and that by "CONVENTIONAL AGREEMENT" it runs from NORTH to SOUTH, it helps, by just seeing these vectors, to identify polarization of the whole magnetic field, without the need to show polarizations.

B-Field runs EXACTLY THROUGH the physical CENTER OF COIL(S) OR MAGNET.

So, by mentioning "A (One) B-Field" is understood that we are referring to A (One) Magnetic Field, ONE SINGULAR Magnetic Field.

**************************************************

And here I will post referencing Hawkins Electrical Guide from 1833, my GRAPHIC analysis related to B-Fields on top of Original Images:

Above is the image of a Brush DC Motor, it shows clearly BOTH SEPARATE POLARIZATIONS, of STATOR FIELD (B1) plus ARMATURE FIELD (B2) which is given by the Brushes Plane.
The Neutral Plane is an ideal Plane, that is always Perpendicular to the polarizations line of the Armature Field.

On this image it shows the best angle (from Neutral to Brush Plane) to set Brushes Plane, to have less sparking on commutator, based on the demagnetizing effect on Armature Reaction.

FINAL POINT ON ABOVE IMAGE IS THE EXISTENCE OF TWO B-FIELDS WITHIN ONE ELECTRODYNAMIC MACHINE:

1- ONE B-FIELD FOR STATOR

2-ONE B-FIELD FOR ARMATURE.

AS THEY ARE NOT "ALIGNING AT ALL", THEREFORE, "NOT ADDING, NOR CANCELLING".

THEY ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE 'SUB-SYSTEMS WITHIN A MAIN SYSTEM'.

WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY ANY DEPENDENCE BETWEEN EACH OTHER'S.

This is the REAL WAY A MOTOR AND A GENERATOR WORKS!!


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

THE SAME, EXACT SITUATION WE HAVE ON A DC BRUSHED GENERATOR (DYNAMO)

The main difference between a Motor and a Dynamo related to the Secondary Armature B-Field, is that in a Motor we are directly exciting the Armature with an External Input.

While on a Dynamo, the Armature gets Magnetized ONLY whenever we add a LOAD, because closing the Output Circuit.

On this image we can clearly see the Flux Lines (a bit exaggerated) indicating the MAGNETIC DRAG due to the ATTRACTION FORCES between the two EXISTING MAGNETIC FIELDS (B-FIELDS) POLES [N-S] within these types of Machines.

This two images I have posted here, ARE THE "TRUE REALITY" ABOUT THE WAY THESE MACHINES WORK, NO MATTER WHAT THE "Mathematicians say, or write about..."

AND FURTHERMORE, THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DESIGN A REAL SETUP, IS NOT BASED ON "FORMULAS", BUT BASED ON THE REAL MAGNETIC INTERACTIONS BEHAVIOR FROM THE CORE OF EXPERIMENTAL TESTING AND DEVELOPMENT.

Ufopolitics