The book is dedicated to self-propelled mechanical generating devices.

[bistander]

Dear opponent! If you found an error. inaccuracy I will listen to you with pleasure. I solved the problem for the simplest generator, according to the rules of physics, the section of electromechanics.  If you can't decide and point out the inaccuracy with your opponent's decision, then the statement is nothing more than bravado, nothing more. If so, then go to the educational institution yourself.

The simplest generator

Twice, now a third. Very specific error on your part. Incorrect to apply Ampere's force law to solve for moment in a dynamo. This does not imply it is the only error.
bi

[rakarskiy]

Twice, now a third. Very specific error on your part. Incorrect to apply Ampere's force law to solve for moment in a dynamo. This does not imply it is the only error.
bi

Magnetic induction of an infinite conductor with a current, there is such a formula. If we apply magnetic induction from an external magnetic field, then, according to the Ampere force formula, the motor will be greater than one in accordance with the principle of reversibility. I've been testing various combinations. So think again about what you're saying.

[bistander]

Magnetic induction of an infinite conductor with a current, there is such a formula. If we apply magnetic induction from an external magnetic field, then, according to the Ampere force formula, the motor will be greater than one in accordance with the principle of reversibility. I've been testing various combinations. So think again about what you're saying.

The two forces (F) are different in your graphic. One F is Laplace force, extension of Lorentz with current carrying conductor in uniform magnetic field. Other F is Ampere force, different extension of Lorentz where current in infinite wire causes force against equal current in parallel wire due to the magnetic field associated with the current in the infinite wire. Ampere's force is directed perpendicular to and between the two wires, equal and opposite direction, therefore unable to produce a moment. Laplace force is orthogonal and able to act against lever as a moment.
In the examples, the magnetic flux used in Laplace force equation is the product of the permanent magnets. In an Ampere's force calculation, the magnetic field(s) arise from the current itself.
bi

[rakarskiy]

The two forces (F) are different in your graphic. One F is Laplace force, extension of Lorentz with current carrying conductor in uniform magnetic field. Other F is Ampere force, different extension of Lorentz where current in infinite wire causes force against equal current in parallel wire due to the magnetic field associated with the current in the infinite wire. Ampere's force is directed perpendicular to and between the two wires, equal and opposite direction, therefore unable to produce a moment. Laplace force is orthogonal and able to act against lever as a moment.
In the examples, the magnetic flux used in Laplace force equation is the product of the permanent magnets. In an Ampere's force calculation, the magnetic field(s) arise from the current itself.
bi

Really?

I turned over a bunch of material, and never found the calculation of the electromagnetic moment of the simplest generator.  All that is offered is to count with an iron core.   And there it makes sense to take into account the cross-section of the poles. In the simplest generator, the conductor moves in a magnetic static field.

The second is the power of Laplace? I wonder how an integral indirect calculation can negate a rectilinear arithmetic one?

The third in the problem is not considered at all, sliding force changes, but only the frontal maximum for simplicity. 

Fourth, everything must always be compared with the reversibility of the motor-generator machines.

Fifth, if you want to convince me of something, I ask for your justification and calculations in examples.

Otherwise, a windbag.

[bistander]

Really?

I turned over a bunch of material, and never found the calculation of the electromagnetic moment of the simplest generator.  All that is offered is to count with an iron core.   And there it makes sense to take into account the cross-section of the poles. In the simplest generator, the conductor moves in a magnetic static field.

The second is the power of Laplace? I wonder how an integral indirect calculation can negate a rectilinear arithmetic one?

The third in the problem is not considered at all, sliding force changes, but only the frontal maximum for simplicity. 

Fourth, everything must always be compared with the reversibility of the motor-generator machines.

Fifth, if you want to convince me of something, I ask for your justification and calculations in examples.

Otherwise, a windbag.

I don't need to convince you of anything. I am simply alerting you and the readers that I find your derivation, or "book", based on a misapplication of Ampere's force law and confusing, to say the least. I feel it shows a lack of comprehension of fundamentals on your part. I've stated my view and you and the readers can research and come to their own conclusions. I feel no need to argue.
bi