Rotating Magnetic Field's and Inductors.

[MileHigh]

When a car's wheels push on the surface of the road, the surface of the road pushes back.  When a swimmer pushes against the wall of the pool with his feet, the wall pushes back.  There is no doubt about this.

However, the surface of the road does not move, and the wall of the pool does not move.  So even though they are exerting force there is no displacement.  Therefore the road surface and the swimming pool wall do no work.  The car moves forward and the work is done by the turning wheels moving on the road surface.  That tangible work becomes increased kinetic energy in the moving car.  Same thing for the swimmer.

For the motor, ultimately it does not matter if the rotor moves and the stator is fixed or if the "rotor" is fixed and the "stator" moves.  The output of the motor is torque times angular displacement no matter how you look at it, and that is equal to work.  The output work occurred because of the input electrical work supplied to the motor.

[poynt99]

I would read your thoughts on these with interest.

Gyula,

Assuming equal dimensions and area of each magnet, it comes down to the difference in the magnetization/mass ratio of each magnet. An identical cylinder of balsa wood is most likely not going to move at all, even though its mass is far less than either of the other two magnets.

Since everyone seems to be in analogy mode, here's one that I hope applies:

You and I are anchored side by side out at sea (I'm not a sailor) in different boats. You are the proud captain of a grande Spanish galleon  , and I'm bobbing about in a 3m Zodiac  . We each have a single large mast and sail, both identical in size and area (never mind how my tiny boat can support such a large mast and sail  ). However, there is a big difference in the sail material; yours has only 5% porosity to the wind, while mine is 99.9% porous. Assuming equal wind conditions when the anchors go up, which boat is going to experience more thrust and resulting propulsion?

In this analogy, the sail porosity is inversely equivalent to the magnet's flux density, and magnetization. So again, the porosity/mass ratio is what determines the thrust each boat experiences. Even though the galleon has a much greater mass than the zodiac, it experiences a large thrust when the wind hits the sails, while the wind on my sail goes right through producing little to no thrust.

What makes the difference even more pronounced with the two different magnet materials, is that the force experienced between two magnets (permanent or electro) is a function of the magnetization squared. So not only is the heavier neo magnet going to be propelled farther than the ceramic due to it having a much higher magnetization, but it is a square function. I'm sure that someone smart (not me) could take the differing magnet masses and magnetizations and compute the theoretical distance each would be propelled by the stator electromagnet.

Does that make sense, or have I missed something?

[tinman]

Brad:

The fundamental problem issue is that you are trying to define "useful work" as the "the conversion of heat power into mechanical power" when that never actually happens.  The only two examples that I am aware of for that, excluding the thermal component that is seen in conventional power generation, are for a carnot engine and for a thermoelectric generator.  In both examples we are talking about a single device, a single case examined on its own merits.

You, on the other hand, are comparing two separate and different and distinct cases, and making a claim that magnets are producing "useful work."  In both cases, it's the input electrical energy that ultimately does the useful work and the magnets contribute zero.  Many examples of two separate cases have been given to you that do exactly the same thing, poor bearings vs. good bearings, resistive wire vs. lower resistance wire, and you reject them and want to single out magnets as doing something special and in fact the magnets are no different from the other examples.  That's the fundamental issue.

It all goes back to a fundamental problem that you see around here all the time:  I change a parameter in my setup and see reduced input power and claim victory when all that you really have done is change the overall impedance of the system resulting in a change in the power drawn by the system.  Reducing the power draw by increasing the overall impedance but still measuring the same output does not mean "free energy" - all that it means is that you have reduced the production of waste heat.

Hacking a universal motor by adding magnets will simply reduce the production of waste heat - nothing more.  In the unmodified universal motor, and in the modified motor, if you could make precise measurements of the waste heat power in both cases and factor it out, then you would find that in both cases the electrical power in is greater than or equal to the mechanical power out.  The magnets will have changed nothing and do not contribute any "useful work" or hypothetical "magnetic power."

In other words, a magnet is not a magic bottomless cup of coffee that spouts a fountain of watts fed by the Clockwork of Nature that in theory can produce an infinite amount of energy.  A magnet is as dead as a doornail and produces nothing at all.  It's just pushed around by the input electrical power like a rag doll.  It can sometimes change the impedance of a setup and result in less waste heat power being produced, which is not really different than swapping out a rusty bearing for a new bearing.

Forget about a universal motor - there is no way that you can do a simple controlled experiment that demonstrates a magnet producing energy.  Just like there is no way that anybody can do a simple controlled experiment that demonstrates a coil producing energy.  But the reality is that there are many people on this forum that do believe that magnets and coils produce energy - hence you have the cottage industry of criminals trying to scam people.

MileHigh

Perhaps you should go and  argue this point with verpies in regards to Itsu's test results.

Brad

[picowatt]

Gyula,

Assuming equal dimensions and area of each magnet, it comes down to the difference in the magnetization/mass ratio of each magnet. An identical cylinder of balsa wood is most likely not going to move at all, even though its mass is far less than either of the other two magnets.

Since everyone seems to be in analogy mode, here's one that I hope applies:

You and I are anchored side by side out at sea (I'm not a sailor) in different boats. You are the proud captain of a grande Spanish galleon  , and I'm bobbing about in a 3m Zodiac  . We each have a single large mast and sail, both identical in size and area (never mind how my tiny boat can support such a large mast and sail  ). However, there is a big difference in the sail material; yours has only 5% porosity to the wind, while mine is 99.9% porous. Assuming equal wind conditions when the anchors go up, which boat is going to experience more thrust and resulting propulsion?

In this analogy, the sail porosity is inversely equivalent to the magnet's flux density, and magnetization. So again, the porosity/mass ratio is what determines the thrust each boat experiences. Even though the galleon has a much greater mass than the zodiac, it experiences a large thrust when the wind hits the sails, while the wind on my sail goes right through producing little to no thrust.

What makes the difference even more pronounced with the two different magnet materials, is that the force experienced between two magnets (permanent or electro) is a function of the magnetization squared. So not only is the heavier neo magnet going to be propelled farther than the ceramic due to it having a much higher magnetization, but it is a square function. I'm sure that someone smart (not me) could take the differing magnet masses and magnetizations and compute the theoretical distance each would be propelled by the stator electromagnet.

Does that make sense, or have I missed something?

.99,

'Tis the Holiday season, a good time for warm drinks, colorful lights, and thought provoking analogies...

Why did you use two different sized boats in the analogy?  Would not the difference in sail porosity have been sufficient to make the point?  (i.e., identical boats, same size sails with different porosity)

As always, good to hear from you,

PW

[poynt99]

To me, the question as to whether the stator actually does work is not all that clear cut.

I wish others would comment on this...

PW

In the case of motors, I'd say the stator coils do seem to stand up to the definition of work. A "force" (field) is applied (by the stator) and the object (rotor) moves in the direction of the force. But in this case, the force is electromagnetic in nature, and there is "work" done on charges as well by an electric field.