Overunity Machines

Hello to All,

As a discussion was generated on the Transverse Flux Topic, Member Solarlab suggested opening a Topic related to the differences on the great work done about Electromagnetism by James Clerk Maxwell versus the Lorentz Force Law by Hendrik Lorentz...which we were arguing about...so, here it is.
And (how come) both render the same results...

First, I would like to start by bringing on some chronological and Literature data required to start this discussion...

1- In 1831, Faraday discovers the Electromagnetic Induction...He experimented by wrapping two insulated coils of wire around an iron ring. He found that, upon passing a current through one coil, a momentary current was induced in the other coil— mutual induction. If he moved a magnet through a loop of wire, an electric current flowed in that wire.

2- James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) is born on 1831 (same year Faraday discovered Induction), He discovered on 1864 (33 years old) that electric and magnetic fields travel through space moving at the same speed of light as waves. Electromagnetic theory: He stated that light is a propagating wave of electric and magnetic field. The theory describes the interaction between the electric field and magnetic field.

Maxwell written books and Papers about Electromagnetism:

1-On Faraday Physical Lines of Force (Paper, 1865) (https://web.archive.org/web/20101215085100/http://blazelabs.com/On%20Faraday's%20Lines%20of%20Force.pdf)
2-A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field (1865) (https://archive.org/details/dynamicaltheoryo00maxw)
3-Matter and Motion. (1857) (https://archive.org/details/mattermotion00maxwiala/page/n19/mode/1up)
4-Treatise on Electricity & Magnetism. Volume 1 (https://archive.org/details/electricandmagne01maxwrich/page/n459/mode/2up) (1873)
5-Treatise on Electricity & Magnetism. Volume 2  (https://archive.org/details/electricandmag02maxwrich/mode/1up)(1875)

As you can see above, there are all known Maxwell Books related to Electromagnetism, except the "Matter and Motion" which defines other parameters as well, however, it is still related.

All cited books above have embedded links to readable PDF Formats online for FREE...

Therefore, I ask you that if you have never even started to read one of his books... please do read them, basically 1, 2, 4 & 5, before commenting here.

The only way to be able to render your comment(s) on Maxwell work, is to know his work, that simple.

And I did not mean to read the ENTIRE Book, but ALL Related Chapters to this Topic Discussion.

It is simple, when you are at the pdf, on Archives Org site (where the 3 main books are), on left press the Search Magnifying lens icon, and type the key words...like Magnetic Field, Single Wire, Coils, Spatial Magnetic Volume, etc.

The reason why I cited Faraday first, is simply to understand that majority of Maxwell development is based and inspired on the Faraday Discovery of Induction Laws.

Maxwell work on Magnetism is ALWAYS backed up by SPATIAL GEOMETRIES CALCULATIONS.
Maxwell does include on his books, the analysis of a single wire (Singular) behavior, HOWEVER, after the First Singular Analysis, then Maxwell goes into experiments-based tests of actions-reactions that keep adding this analysis to multiple conductors (wires) ending with COILS EXPERIMENTS as it is known to "All knowledgeable on the Arts", that the ONLY Geometrical Configuration to Generate a FULL Magnetic Field is simply A COIL, not a Single Wire Loop.



And I will still be adding a LOT of Info here...

Ufopolitics

Ufopolitics,

Thanks for opening this subject; it's my belief there is a lot to be learned by studying, in detail,
their differences and their applications.

From an old post [rather long]:
-------------------------------------
Title: Re: Holcomb Energy Systems:Breakthrough technology to the world
Post by: SolarLab on July 20, 2022, 08:55:32 PM
-------------------------------------
Two Electromagnetic Equations - Yield the Same Results

Of the four laws of electromagnetism, let's consider only Lorentz Force and Faraday's Law of induction.

They both arrive at the same answer; but their mechanisms are different. Some may say Faraday's Law
is associated with Lenz whereas Lorentz is not - Faraday deals with an alternating magnetic field - Lorentz
deals with a sweeping (traveling) magnetic field.

Review the earlier "Asymetric transformers - AAbramovich Discussions" section "Equivalence of induction
according to Lorentz and Faraday" and the information below. Note that the differences between Faraday
and Lorentz were never really resolved - history - seems Einstein got in the way - since he couldn't solve
it, he started a new branch of physics - Special Relativity - and further attempts at a resolution faded. Lots
of reading but worth it!

Four Laws of Electromagnetism

https://www.motioncontroltips.com/four-laws-of-electromagnetism-you-should-know/ (https://www.motioncontroltips.com/four-laws-ofelectromagnetism-you-should-know/)
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/panvini/p110a/lect37c.html (https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/panvini/p110a/lect37c.html)

Why Faraday's law and Lorentz force create the same electromotive force?

The Faraday's induction formula (flux rule) of electromagnetism says that the electromotive force (emf)
created in a conducting circuit is equal to the rate at which the magnetic flux through the conducting circuit
changes as it is written on a high school text in physics. This emf can be calculated in two ways: either by
using the Lorentz force formula and calculating the force acting on electrons in the moving conductor of the
circuit; or via one of Maxwell's equations (Faraday's law) and calculating the change of the magnetic flux
penetrating through the circuit. The Lorentz force formula and Maxwell's equations are two distinct physical
laws, yet the two methods yield the same results.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170926085958.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170926085958.htm)

Includes a bit more "history" - Faraday's Law of Induction:

https://www.dataforth.com/faradays-law-of-induction.aspx (https://www.dataforth.com/faradays-law-of-induction.aspx)
... "This is not exactly what Faraday described but was called Faraday's Law by Oliver Heaviside. It does not
include the movement emf; that is the force effect Faraday found. The magnetic force is called Lorentz force.

Current flowing in a wire in the presence of a magnetic field will experience a force and move if not restrained.
In this case, magnetic energy is released kinetically." ...
" The previous mention of the relative motion of magnetic field and electric circuit has had considerable thought by many, well-known physicists. Richard Feynman stated: (1)

So the "flux rule" that the emf in a circuit is equal to the rate of change of the magnetic flux through the circuit
applies whether the flux changes because the field changes or because the circuit moves (or both) ...

Yet in our explanation for the rule we have used two completely distinct laws for the two cases Faraday's Law
equation (both vector quantities: -v x B) for "circuit moves" and Faraday's Law equation (vector: V x E = -dtB)
for "field changes".

We know of no other place in physics where such a simple and accurate general principle requires for its real
understanding an analysis in terms of two different phenomena.

Richard P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorentz Force 3d view animation video (Lorentz is near the end, 6:26)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ9YRWYv2cY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ9YRWYv2cY)

------------- Food for thought ---------

Professor Eric Laithwaite: Magnetic River 1975
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_HFnNTfyU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OI_HFnNTfyU)

Professor Eric Laithwaite: Motors Big and Small - 1971
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWiYsRi2Dss (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWiYsRi2Dss)

SL

All,

If you're really into this "EM Stuff" here's the "Feynman Letures on Physics Volume II"
from Caltech.edu (free - read-on-line). Ties a lot of the physics together. 

Table of Contents:

https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_toc.html

Be aware, however, this is heavy-duty Physics - mainly "Electromagnetism and Matter
as presented by Feynman!" [There's a lot there - I think it was a full semester or two.]
Original ~ 1964, Revised ~ 2006 & ~ 2013...

SL

Hello,

I will try to put it as simple as I can...

The reason why I have opened this Topic is NOT just to know why both Laws yield the same results...the answer is very obvious to many reading here.

Lorentz Law (Lorentz Force) is just a 'compacted modern version' of Maxwell's 'Magnetism Universe'; therefore, it contains the 'extract' which must derive on the same results.

But only If you get to read Maxwell Books, then you would understand the differences between the Lorentz Compact Extraction versus the vast Maxwellian Geometries of Magnetism.

Because to understand Lorentz Force it may take you just a few minutes, one single wire, one single particle, passing through one single Magnetic Field.

The maximum expression you will get on Lorentz Force Law is a looped wire, of a single turn within a magnetic field, then apply a current:


This is it...and yes, you can easily understand that both forces Fup & Fdown, on each side of the loop, will result in a Half Rotation (180º)
Until this single loop reverses, to fall back on the same scenario at start.

So-you think- you fully understand how 'a motor works or rotates'...just by looking at above image...
And yes, you also get on the same 'package' the "Right Hand Rule" as a rudimentary way to know how to apply it (how to set your fingers while sticking two on the direction that your hand muscles allow to stretch) wherever you find this 'situation'...

Only thing I find awkward here, are the relation between B-Field and the Two Forces that must be on a 90º set UP & DOWN?...then ask ourselves, why Forces do not also manifest on the back part of the wire loop?

If they are following the same current flow?

I will answer (according to Lorentz): No, because you MUST use all Three (3) Parameters involved, that is IL & B!!
So, the back wire on the loop is not following the Perpendicular direction of B-Field, but is Parallel to it...so it is 'neglected'...no force.

And here comes our "Right Hand Rule Assistant" as a 'holy savior' that would get us all out of any doubts, right?


As you all have noticed, the Force Formula (F=I.L.B) is identical for a Motor, as for a Single wire inside a magnetic field 'B'...

So, this is it, all we need to know related to a current carrying single wire within a magnetic field...

That is Lorentz Force...

Now, how long it took you to understand this?...10, 20, 30 minutes?

Great!!

Next, let's analyze same 'scenario' but with Maxwell Magnetism.

Ufopolitics

Hello again,

Unfortunately, the REALITY does not 'Apply' to Lorentz Force...

Or have ANY ONE of you, ever seen a Motor or a Generator, where there is just a Single Loop of wire within its Armature/Rotor for any Motor or a Rotary Field on a Generator having just one single wire?

So, to make it easier, I have made a short video...using my links above to Maxwell Books, basically the Three Main Books He wrote...and searching the word "coil".


This would give you an idea that the work of Maxwell is purely based on a Coil Behavior and Analysis, and Test in many Experiments that He performed.

You could verify it yourself...doing the same thing I did on video above, but, going on detail on every page that mentions the word "coil".

Regards

Ufopolitics

Lorentz "Extracted" completely from All Maxwell Work the word "coil"...to replace it by a "single wire", first a "straight wire" and then loop the single wire inside a static magnetic field to understand "how a motor or generator works".

The difference between coil and single wire analysis resumes in only ONE thing...a Secondary Magnetic Field existence.

A single wire would never generate a second Field within another Field, actually it is just a drastic SHORT CIRCUIT...which will NOT DO ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING, except throw a lot of smoke, heat and melt under a current circulation.

I can only relate Lorentz single wire loop example as a resistance for an electrical cook stove (not the induction one, but the old type that consumes hundreds of Kilowatts per minute, and that gets melting red hot)

Now, with a Coil, EVERYTHING CHANGES, because we are adding Resistance, Inductance and many other parameters...

BUT besides all parameters, a coil generates a SPATIAL MAGNETIC FIELD.

Now, this Field is Spatially originated within that loop of wires called COIL, BUT, it EXPANDS into a Spatial Volume beyond the coil limits.

So, in reality, when we replace the single wire loop by a Coil on the same image that I have shown before, then we have this result below:


As you all can see, the difference is huge!!

But mainly, a SECONDARY FIELD has originated within the Primary Field, as soon as we run a current through the coil.

Now, because of the positioning of Both Fields ARE NOT in a Magnetic Chain Alignment of N/S-N/S-N/S, or as I call it: "At Magnetic Equilibrium State", this coil would tend to SEEK EXACTLY that positioning...

This tendency of the Secondary Field to seek for an alignment, generates Four Forces within the Air-Gap Space between them.

Two are Repulsion Forces (Fr1 & Fr2), as other two are Attraction Forces (Fa1 & Fa2)..BUT, more importantly, all these Four Forces are NOT Perpendicular to the Coil Loop nor the B-Field like Lorentz states on his Law!!!

These Forces are ANGULAR TO THE SPATIAL INNER FIELD, generating a TORSION EFFECT.

Note: This exactly 'Scenario' applies as well to a DC Brushed Generator or a "Dynamo".

To be continued...


Ufopolitics

Ufopolitics,

Don't get too hung-up on the "single wire" - it's probably used in the explainations
to simplify things.

Your explaination tends to focus on a single wire (may be misleading at first glance):

Consider "Current Density [J]" - the amount of charge per unit time that flows through
a unit area of chosen "Cross Section" - a vector whose magnitude is the electric
current per cross-section area at a given point in space.

Measured in amperes per square meter - a single wire of cross section "A" or a bunch
of wires with cross section "A" in m².

SL

Formulas - Circuit (wire) moves and Field (magnetic) changes.

Examing the two equations in analytical form (formulas) might
help as well in "seeing the differences."

Which form might not lend itself to "Lenz?"

Attached: "flux rule"

SL

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 27, 2024, 04:38 PMUfopolitics,

Don't get too hung-up on the "single wire" - it's probably used in the explainations
to simplify things.

Your explaination tends to focus on a single wire (may be misleading at first glance):

Consider "Current Density [J]" - the amount of charge per unit time that flows through
a unit area of chosen "Cross Section" - a vector whose magnitude is the electric
current per cross-section area at a given point in space.

Measured in amperes per square meter - a single wire of cross section "A" or a bunch
of wires with cross section "A" in m².

SL

SL,

I believe you are the one who is getting hung on the single wire, single charge, single magnetic field.

The main point here is that a "single wire loop" does not project a Spatial Secondary Field.

And it is not just "to simplify things"...otherwise it would give us the first and second laws (for single and multiple strands)

However, this is easy to reconcile (find/settle) on Ampere-Maxwell Laws, as also on Gauss Law for Magnetism:




If we go to ALL the Lorentz Mathematical Equations about his Force Law, you will NOT find a single one that have a "Secondary" B-Field (magnetic field) ...it is all about ONE B-FIELD, ONE E-FIELD.

It is obvious that the single wire, having a moving (q)charge within a B-Field will manifest a Force F the way he states.

However, everything changes when we apply Ampere, Gauss and Maxwell Laws (see image again, above.) many conductors, having ALL the same circular current flow, GENERATES A FIELD, another B-Field, a Second Magnetic Field.

So, please provide on any Lorentz Force Formulas that you can find out there, where is this Second B-Field ?? configured by the loop of the single wire or several turns of wire (supposing 'single wire loop' is completely "hypothetical") within the Static Magnetic Field which is the ONLY ONE denoted as B...and of course, running a current on wire(s) denoted by charge 'q'.

I will be waiting...


Ufopolitics

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 27, 2024, 05:00 PMFormulas - Circuit (wire) moves and Field (magnetic) changes.

When wire moves?...the Static Field changes?...that's wrong.
What is stated on Lorentz Law is that either the E-Field (Static) or the B-Field (Dynamic) can be ruling the equation as being 'active'
No wire on the single wire crossing the B-Field moves, 'wire moves' just on the Motor-Generator application of the law as I have stated before.

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 27, 2024, 05:00 PMExaming the two equations in analytical form (formulas) might
help as well in "seeing the differences."

On the Lorentz formulas there is just one electric field (E), just one magnetic field (B), a charged particle (q) and a velocity (v)
And that's it.
Then review Faraday and Maxwell Formulas...they include variation of Flux, over variation of Time...

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 27, 2024, 05:00 PMWhich form might not lend itself to "Lenz?"

Have I even mentioned "Lenz" here?

I do not think so.

Lenz Law have nothing to do here, except noise and confusion.

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jun 27, 2024, 08:56 PM

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 27, 2024, 04:38 PMUfopolitics,

Don't get too hung-up on the "single wire" - it's probably used in the explainations
to simplify things.

Your explaination tends to focus on a single wire (may be misleading at first glance):

Consider "Current Density [J]" - the amount of charge per unit time that flows through
a unit area of chosen "Cross Section" - a vector whose magnitude is the electric
current per cross-section area at a given point in space.

Measured in amperes per square meter - a single wire of cross section "A" or a bunch
of wires with cross section "A" in m².

SL

SL,

I believe you are the one who is getting hung on the single wire, single charge, single magnetic field.

The main point here is that a "single wire loop" does not project a Spatial Secondary Field.

And it is not just "to simplify things"...otherwise it would give us the first and second laws (for single and multiple strands)


Ufopolitics

Ufo,

You seem to have it all figured out already - great! Hope it helps you in your work...

""SL,
I believe you are the one who is getting hung on the single wire, single charge, single magnetic field.
Couldn't find any reference of mine to a single wire prior my reference to A/M^{2 - but I'll look agian!
[Appears like the "ole - attack the person stuff, rather than discuss the technology - but that's common these days]}

The main point here is that a "single wire loop" does not project a Spatial Secondary Field.""

Without discussion of the "two formulas" I find it difficult to "see any differences." Maxwell, BTW,
analyzes the point space in 3 Dimensions - that's why it's hard/impossible to "see" in a planar space.

Anyway, I guess we view things from differing angles; so I'll leave you to your analysis
plus I'll avoid of the "Sand Box" scenario.

However, on the Lorentz Force page that you cite several times, you left out the bottom part -
the part where there is an on-line calculator which is very hand for a first pass calculation.

Once you understand the two equations, and their operation, it can be very useful...

SL

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 28, 2024, 02:33 AMUfo,

You seem to have it all figured out already - great! Hope it helps you in your work...

SL,
It will help you also on your work...

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 28, 2024, 02:33 AM""SL,
I believe you are the one who is getting hung on the single wire, single charge, single magnetic field.
Couldn't find any reference of mine to a single wire prior my reference to A/M^{2 - but I'll look agian!
[Appears like the "ole - attack the person stuff, rather than discuss the technology - but that's common these days]}

SL, it is not about any attacks, I meant that you are only seeing (hung) on my "single wire" that I write here, without seeing what comes after, as a consequence of "a single wire" construct.

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 28, 2024, 02:33 AM

QuoteThe main point here is that a "single wire loop" does not project a Spatial Secondary Field.

Without discussion of the "two formulas" I find it difficult to "see any differences." Maxwell, BTW,
analyzes the point space in 3 Dimensions - that's why it's hard/impossible to "see" in a planar space.

I can NOT see why a "two formulas discussion" would bring any light here, as how this could help to discuss the complete deletion (by Lorentz) of a Secondary Field under discussion here.

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 28, 2024, 02:33 AMAnyway, I guess we view things from differing angles; so I'll leave you to your analysis
plus I'll avoid of the "Sand Box" scenario.

No, we are not seeing it "from different angles", obviously you are openly avoiding answering my previous question:

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jun 27, 2024, 08:56 PMSo, please provide on any Lorentz Force Formulas that you can find out there, where is this Second B-Field ?? configured by the loop of the single wire or several turns of wire (supposing 'single wire loop' is completely "hypothetical") within the Static Magnetic Field which is the ONLY ONE denoted as B...and of course, running a current on wire(s) denoted by charge 'q'.
I will be waiting...
Ufopolitics

Ufopolitics

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jun 27, 2024, 08:56 PM

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 27, 2024, 04:38 PMUfopolitics,

Don't get too hung-up on the "single wire" - it's probably used in the explainations
to simplify things.

Your explaination tends to focus on a single wire (may be misleading at first glance):

Consider "Current Density [J]" - the amount of charge per unit time that flows through
a unit area of chosen "Cross Section" - a vector whose magnitude is the electric
current per cross-section area at a given point in space.

Measured in amperes per square meter - a single wire of cross section "A" or a bunch
of wires with cross section "A" in m².

SL

SL,

I believe you are the one who is getting hung on the single wire, single charge, single magnetic field.

The main point here is that a "single wire loop" does not project a Spatial Secondary Field.

And it is not just "to simplify things"...otherwise it would give us the first and second laws (for single and multiple strands)

However, this is easy to reconcile (find/settle) on Ampere-Maxwell Laws, as also on Gauss Law for Magnetism:

AMPERE_MAXWELL_LAW.png

If we go to ALL the Lorentz Mathematical Equations about his Force Law, you will NOT find a single one that have a "Secondary" B-Field (magnetic field) ...it is all about ONE B-FIELD, ONE E-FIELD.

It is obvious that the single wire, having a moving (q)charge within a B-Field will manifest a Force F the way he states.

However, everything changes when we apply Ampere, Gauss and Maxwell Laws (see image again, above.) many conductors, having ALL the same circular current flow, GENERATES A FIELD, another B-Field, a Second Magnetic Field.

So, please provide on any Lorentz Force Formulas that you can find out there, where is this Second B-Field ?? configured by the loop of the single wire or several turns of wire (supposing 'single wire loop' is completely "hypothetical") within the Static Magnetic Field which is the ONLY ONE denoted as B...and of course, running a current on wire(s) denoted by charge 'q'.

I will be waiting...


Ufopolitics

"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

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 28, 2024, 06:18 PM"Second B-Field" ? Never hear of such a thing, especially in an "Laws" that I've ever seen or studied.

SL,

Do you know what a B-Field is?...yeah, go, run to search it... ;D

Three Phase AC Motors and Generators, NOT ONLY have Two, BUT Three B-Fields, each out of phase, where each Phase is configured by one Coil or a group of overlapped coils.

Every time you energize one coil in one given System, that has its own B-Field.

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 28, 2024, 06:18 PMYou just can't make stuff up to suit your explainations, etc. - best to stick to the known laws as
they are presented.

First you told me "I am getting hung on a single wire"...
And now you are telling ME, that I am "making stuff up"?!

What is this, an RC Flying Forum now? paraphrasing you.

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 28, 2024, 06:18 PMSo, 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!

The fact that You have no idea, do not know about "something"...it does not mean "it does not exist", much less to tell the person who is mentioning it, that He is "making stuff up"...maybe for your knowledge it does not exist.

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 28, 2024, 06:18 PMIn a design all the fields run together...

SL

Negative, Nope...there are MANY Systems that comprehend more than one B-Field, which are not necessarily "running together" as one field.

And finally, for your knowledge, (because obviously you do not know about me nor my work) I do not "make stuff up" to fit my explanations.

I BUILD SETUPS to prove MY THEORIES, and when REAL TESTING (Not Software Simulations) confirms them, only then, I write about them as I validate them.


Ufopolitics

Page 262-263

Cross Magnetization; Field Distortion.—In the operation of a dynamo with load, the induced current flowing in the armature winding, converts the armature into an electromagnet setting up a field across or at right angles to the field of the machine. This cross magnetization of the armature tends to distort the field produced by the field magnets, the effect being known as armature reaction. To understand the nature of this reaction it is best to first consider the effect of the field current and the armature current separately.


Ques. Explain the action of the current supplied to a motor for its operation.

Ans. The motor current passing through the field magnets polarizes them and establishes a magnetic field, and entering the armature, polarizes its core in such a way that the positive pole of the core is away from the negative pole of the magnetic field, and the negative pole is away from the positive pole of the magnetic field. The magnetic repulsions and attractions thus created cause the armature to rotate in a position of magnetic equilibrium or so as to bring its positive and negative poles opposite the negative and positive poles respectively of the magnetic field. It is evident that unless suitable means were provided to reverse the polarity of the armature core at the instant it reached the position of the magnetic equilibrium, the armature would not rotate any further. The construction is such that the polarity of the armature core, or the direction of the current in the armature coils is reversed at the proper instant automatically by the commutator, thus giving continuous rotation.

Page 366

Armature Reaction in Motors.—In the operation of a motor the reaction between the armature and field magnets distorts the field in a similar manner as in the operation of a dynamo. A current supplied from an outside source magnetizes the armature of a motor and transforms it into an electromagnet, whose poles would lie nearly at right angies to the line joining the pole pieces, were it not for the fact that negative lead must be given to the brushes.


Ufopolitics

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

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jun 29, 2024, 02:58 PM

Quote from: Ufopolitics on Jun 29, 2024, 02:57 PM

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 29, 2024, 01:49 PMUfo,

I figured out the disjoint -

really?

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 29, 2024, 01:49 PMThe 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!!

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 29, 2024, 01:49 PMNow, many billions or trillions of these interactions (the Laws) make up things like how
a motor works.

Amazing!

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 29, 2024, 01:49 PMYour 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!!

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 29, 2024, 01:49 PMBoth 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

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 29, 2024, 01:49 PMOfo,

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  ;D
Yes, You have figured it out, FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 29, 2024, 01:49 PMThe 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.

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 29, 2024, 01:49 PMNow, 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.

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 29, 2024, 01:49 PMYour 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)

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 29, 2024, 01:49 PMBoth 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

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:

Quote from: solarlab on Jun 28, 2024, 06:18 PM"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

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

This image is EXACTLY same positioning set as previous image, except this is an ACTUAL REAL IMAGE, where we can clearly see the same Pattern of Opposing Forces by adding some iron filings.

We can observe FOUR OPPOSING FORCES TO ROTATION R (Arrow above-center shows Rotating Force Direction of Dynamo).

F Attraction 1- On the UPPER LEFT side an Attraction Force from the S Pole at Stator and the N Pole of Armature, that I set a Blue Circle on it.

F Repulsion  2- On Right Upper Corner we see N-N Repulsion.

F Attraction 3- On Right Lower Corner, an S-N Attraction.

F Attraction 4 On Left Lower Corner, we have a S-S Repulsion

On Attractions there are a heavier concentration of iron filings, while the opposite takes place on a Repulsion, where we observe a lack of concentrated iron particles.

Ufopolitics

In your drawing. Leading -lagging pole shoe tips.  Each pole shoe half would be either a generator or a motor. So if the pole shoes were split and a field coil placed on them. And respectively placed in the right position adjacent to the armature. When loaded the motor should speed up depending on the resistance of the load according to the resistance of the field coils.

That would separate the motor and generator part and the load would be the rotating force. This could work in theory. Testing would need to be done.

Quote from: hiwater on Jul 01, 2024, 09:16 AMIn your drawing. Leading -lagging pole shoe tips.  Each pole shoe half would be either a generator or a motor. So if the pole shoes were split and a field coil placed on them. And respectively placed in the right position adjacent to the armature. When loaded the motor should speed up depending on the resistance of the load according to the resistance of the field coils.

That would separate the motor and generator part and the load would be the rotating force. This could work in theory. Testing would need to be done.

Hello Hiwater,

They already used that technique of adding an additional field pole, but to reduce sparking, on same book & chapter this image came out from.
All you are doing is, instead of having Two Field Poles, after the splitting of the two in Four, then adding a third and a fourth coil-pole, is having now a Six Field Coils instead of two.
So, you will be increasing the magnetic drag of armatures, either motor or dynamo.

Ufopolitics

A cleaner image of the latest one I have posted...plus I added the Four Vector Forces involved (F1, F2, F3, F4) that oppose rotation direction "R".

The N1 and S1 Poles on Armature are mirrored polarizations due to dynamo's rotation plus tendency of attraction with field coils based on brushes plane (magenta dotted line).

Here we have a completely different perspective view approach to Lenz Law.

To simplify these Opposing Forces, we can just add them without changing their spatial positioning into one FULL TORSION FORCE, comprehending the full 360 degrees.

We MUST realize that Attraction Forces between opposite poles ALWAYS tend to seek the PERFECT CENTER or BISECTOR CENTER LINE(S) .


Ufopolitics

I agree. As the input power is clockwise  ( say the first half of the letter S as it swings through the armature and completes it path the magnetic feild swings the other way) or armature reaction.

Then one motor coil is put on each end of the green line in your picture. That would take up 1/4 of the armature on each side for the forward emf. Then change the brush location to put the motor in magnetic lock so it wont rotate either way. Then add 2 more pole shoes with coils on the other 2 quarter locations. These would probably in the locations that the forward emf changes direction ccw. the motor would then run ccw. Using the load coils to run the motor.

These coils then could possibly aid in rotation in stead of slowing the motor down when a load is put on either one of these 2 coils. rotation direction would be opposite on in put power. CCW.  It sounds good. Dont know if it will work.

Just some thoughts to throw out there.

@hiwater , and All,

The basic idea of showing this thread is to have a REAL VIEW, about the way these Machines work...as these views would let us start making our mind's work into other perspectives.

Like You are doing based on your latest comments.

I have been showing videos since 2012 about the way Symmetric Machines work:



Recently, I have been working on the Torsion Field, the Torsion Forces, etc...and honestly ALL THIS TIME, I thought that it was a "General Knowledge" BY NOW, on the way a simple Brushed, Symmetrical Motor really works...as to my surprise it was not...it has "deviated" all this knowledge due strictly on Lorentz Force on a SINGLE WIRE LOOP WITHIN A STATIC MAGNETIC FIELD.

The reality about the existence of a SECOND MAGNETIC FIELD developed on Armature, and that it is COMPLETELY STATIC...is NOT OF "General Knowledge" still.

I had to go back to 1800 and 1900's Books, to REVIVE and post this old, BUT REAL knowledge:


Now, related to image above:

It is a Brushed Motor that have 36 looped coils in SERIES, contouring the full 360º, and connected to each commutator contact/element every 180 degrees, overlapped.

Positive and Negative Brushes are also set at 180 degrees.

So, as we energize brushes the Armature starts to rotate...as coils starts reversing currents as they pass the Brush (Commutating) Plane (Magenta Dotted Line) on BOTH SIDES according to Rotation (CW here)

MAIN POINT HERE, is that no matter how fast Armature spins, the Armature Field WOULD ALWAYS BE ON THE SAME EXACT POSITIONING, AS IT IS NOW.

If you go to minute 2:48 of video above, you will see an animation of how this mechanism taking place graphically...

This Static Armature Magnetic Field, along with the Stator Magnetic Field positioning are the ONLY MEANS that generates Rotation on these types of motors.


Regards

Ufopolitics

Beautifully inspired post. I hope all here can see that you have your heart in this quest to better humanity. Thanks Not one mind but  all minds coming together to make this quest a reality.