Electrical Faux Pas

[BEP]

Thanks!

As you probably already know. I can't agree with that description but that isn't the point or important at this time. For most practical purposes that is the way it should be considered.  What is important is that it is here and available for those who do not know. They can build upon that idea as they experiment.
The two things related here that I see:

1. The creator of the TPU has not used the term 'rotating magnetic field'.

EDIT>>> I stand corrected... There is comentary from the inventor and those around him that indicate a rotation of magnetic field is thought to be involved. Perhaps as ZPE described or maybe beyond my comprehension.

2. Alternating or switching a magnetic pole from one coil to another is not the same as the rotating bar magnet you have described, at any speed.

EDIT>>> Yes - pseudo would be a correct description. It works quite well with motors and generators. Indeed, this may be exactly how a TPU should work. I'm not sure at this point. However, using the two loops mentioned with a gradual shift of polarization should be very interesting. I'll try it.

EDIT>>>My intention was to create another reference point - not to start an argument. Such should be opened on another thread.

[Mr.Entropy]

Here is something I posted almost a year ago. I think it still has relevance.

OK, first, I have not seen a practical down-to-earth explanation of what exactly a rotating magnetic field is. We all have said it, but what is it?

The purest example in my opinion, is to take a bar magnet polarized at the ends, and with a hole milled through the mid-point between the ends, the magnet is spun on an axis formed by this hole. This constitutes a constant magnetic field that is not only stable in magnitude, but one that is rotating as well. The distance between the ends of this bar magnet represent the diameter of a circle or toroid it would circumscribe, and it "splits" this toroid in half by virtue of its existence.

Of course we must envision the field as a ball-like shape, and remember that the poles can be rotated in any plane.

There is no such thing as magnetic field that rotates on its axis.  The magnetic field is a vector field, which means it assigns a vector value to every point in space.  The value of the magnetic field at any point has the magnitude and direction of the force that the field would apply to the north pole of a magnet at that point.   This is the definition of the magnetic field -- it is just this vector field and nothing else.  In particular, it doesn't have 'lines of flux" that "move" or that are attached to magnets in any way, or that do things when they cross wires.  Flux lines are simply a convenient way to visualize the field.

A bar magnet has a magnetic field around it that is symmetrical around its axis.   Rotating the magnet around its axis, therefore, doesn't change the field at all, and no external objects will feel this rotation magnetically.

This was first shown by Faraday with his famous disk dynamo.  See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

[z_p_e]

Entropy,

I'm not sure what your post has to do with mine actually.

I was simply stating in it's purest form, how I envision a RMF. It had nothing to do with Faraday's paradox. You are talking about rotating a bar magnet on it's own axis a la Faraday's disk dynamo.

I was talking about rotating a bar magnet on an axis formed through the center point between the poles.... i.e. with a 6 cm long bar magnet, the axis of rotation is at (and perpendicular to) the 3 cm mark.

[Mr.Entropy]

I was talking about rotating a bar magnet on an axis formed through the center point between the poles.... i.e. with a 6 cm long bar magnet, the axis of rotation is at (and perpendicular to) the 3 cm mark.

Ohhhh.... nevermind then -- I read that wrong.

Cheers,

Mr. Entropy

[wattsup]

z_p_e

Thank you from everyone here that needs such help (especially myself hehehe) for this great effort. I have questions galore but let's start with what's on the table already.

I read Faraday's Paradox can see it has no bearing on the turning of the magnet on its width central axis, but on the length central axis. It is obvious that on its length the magnet is only turning into itself so the same effect is always maintained as it was when it is stationary. I can also understand why the magnet would produce a magnetic ball field or close to a ball field on it width central axis.

BEP says that switching between two coils would not produce such a ball field and this is also understandable since you are now creating two north/south poles and not one turning.

Now what if you simply had like the open TPU either four single wound (collector) coils in series or four double wound coils both in series to make two separate and parallel loops, and what if you simply changed polarities on either one set or on two sets in opposition. Would this be considered a ball field?

If not, can we presume that an artificial ball field with coils is impossible if the coil or coils do not physically rotate?