icester
-
Posts
47 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by icester
-
-
0
-
9 hours ago, swansont said:
Is that supposed to have any particular meaning? ALL of this is induction.
No, static magnetic field does not induce EMF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_equation
0 -
16 minutes ago, Doug Jones said:
Just take a magnet and drop it thru a 3 foot copper pipe and see it slow down compared to
dropping it in air. This means moving magnetic field induces opposite field in the copper pipe.
Thus moving a magnet or a wire in the field creates an EMF wave.
Yes, but that is eddy current and induction... Take a 3 foot magnet magnetized perpendicular to it's length and drop a copper ring around it and no effect at all because acceleration is two low for the force to make visible effect...
0 -
7 minutes ago, Strange said:
It also explains that the relevant equation is Faraday's Law, not Lorentz Law.
Read the chapter "10.2 Motional EMF"
http://web.mit.edu/viz/EM/visualizations/coursenotes/modules/guide10.pdf
0 -
1 minute ago, Strange said:
Good grief.
I think you should ask for this thread to be closed before you embarrass yourself further.
Well if you find it distasteful you do not have to post...
0 -
1 minute ago, Strange said:
Why do you keep talking about force, when you are measuring voltage?
0 -
2 minutes ago, swansont said:
That’s the point. Your setup IS NOT THE SAME as the one in these descriptions. That’s why your experiment failed. You did it wrong.
It was a link you provided, and you need a changing field to get an EMF. Your spinning magnet has a constant field, as configured, which is why you get no result.
Those descriptions are unrelated to Lorentz formula F=q*v*B or I*B*L...
The calculator description states " The voltage generated in a length of wire, presuming that the entire length moves through a uniform field, is given below. "
If it required changing field the parameters describing the change would be in input fields... But there is no single experimental setup that confirms the EMF...
0 -
Just now, swansont said:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/genwir3.html#c1
An alternative would be dropping a magnet through a coil of wire
Here are my results when I did that (1200 turns of wire, coil was half a meter or so tall)
I fail to see connection between those assumptions and experimental setup that existed in reality...
First link just shows scope traces and talks about induction which is related to changing field not constant uniform one and the second link is just a calculator not an existing experimental setup...
0 -
Just now, swansont said:
You've been given several pictures already. Do you really need an identical one? I don't see how that will help.
Just for convenience please point me to at least one such example setup....
0 -
5 minutes ago, swansont said:
Which is wrong. You can have an EMF, with the correct motion.
The voltage is proportional to the change in flux per unit time. When you rotate the magnet, the flux of the enclosed area does not change. Thus, no voltage.
Um, what? There have been a number of them, including textbook diagrams showing how to do it. You are using a different setup with your rotating magnet. Why would you expect the same results with a different setup?
OK, please provide an example of correct setup...
0 -
12 minutes ago, iNow said:
Where specifically, amd what does it say there? Will you please repeat it here for convenience?
The intent was a call for help debarking my experiment on Lorentz force and I got response, thank you...
Since no one has suggested experimental setup which would show Motional EMF I have concluded that Lorentz force equation is defective or false... Base on that I wrote my own paper where I claim the new force with correct equations, mathematical simulation in Matlab and links to current classroom reference...
0 -
Your questions are answered and just need to read the history more carefully... And since you are not answering my questions I wish not to extend this conversation with you because it is not useful to any party...
0 -
What question is that I refuse to answer?
3 minutes ago, Strange said:Please read the rules of the forum.
That just seems to be the contents of this thread converted to PDF. What is the point?
No, that is my scientific paper but at this point I fail to understand what is you intention on this thread...
Please, describe an experiment where a wire is moving with constant velocity in constant magnetic field...
0 -
Just now, Strange said:
You are not making any sense.
You are saying that there is no change in the field but at the same time that the stationary wire is moving through the field. This is contradictory.
What is "Orman Force"? And what connection does it have with your experiment?
What do you expect from your experiment? And why? (And why do you refuse to answer questions?)
0 -
15 minutes ago, Strange said:
Yes you did.
You said:
And the wire is not moving.
So, no moving magnetic field and no moving wire.
Therefore you admit that you do not have wire moving trough magnetic field.
This is wrong.
And it is irrelevant because you do not have a wire moving through a magnetic field. As you admit.
What do you expect from your experiment? And why? Please show the math.
I've said " And there is no changing magnetic field in rotating magnet because it rotates around it's axis of symmetry... "
is correct because changing means that either and or flux intensity changes and or orientation changes and or acceleration is non zero...
Cutting trough identical flux lines with constant frequency is what constant velocity motion in uniform magnetic field is...
Here is the Orman Force on an electron moving in uniform magnetic field accelerated by uniform electric field in Matlab script format:
0 -
Just now, Strange said:
This is nonsense.
But also, this is not what your "experiment" shows, so it is irrelevant. You do not have a wire moving through a magnetic field (as you admit).
As you keep repeating ridiculous statements like this and refuse to provide sensible answers to questions I will request this thread is closed.
I never said "I do not have wire moving trough magnetic field"... I've said that there is no EMF when wire moves with constant velocity trough constant magnetic field ...
0 -
1 minute ago, Strange said:
Do you mean "perpendicular"? So the N and S poles are along the long length of the magnet?
Or do you mean a bar magnet with the N and S poles at each end?
That is not true. (Maybe you can contrive a case where it is true but, in general, uniform motion of a wire through a magnetic field will generate a voltage.)
But you seem to alternate between saying that there should be no voltage and saying that you expect to measure a voltage.
So what do you expect to see?
No, I state clearly, and long magnet to have a long uniform field for the wire to move trough must have north pole across it's length on wider width side and south on the other wider one...
Just like I said perpendicular to it's length... Your statement "in general, uniform motion of a wire through a magnetic field will generate a voltage." refers to what the universities teach except they provide no experimental evidence at all, now and in the past...
0 -
5 minutes ago, Strange said:
Is it?
After all, you (correctly) said:
So there is no voltage expected.
It is the same with long bar magnet magnetized in direction perpendicular to it's length and as long as there is parallel and relative constant linear motion between magnet and wire the Lorentz force and apparent EMF is zero...
0 -
2 minutes ago, Strange said:
But there is no relative motion. Static wire. Static magnetic field. Therefore no voltage.
Why do you think there should be?
Magnetic field is rotating relative to stationary wire as stated before I also checked the case where magnet is stationary and wire is rotating just to prove to my self that motion is always relative...
0 -
15 minutes ago, studiot said:
I was specific, but I have repeated the extract and underlined where your words make no sense.
You clearly (but wrongly) stated velocity to be unaffected by the magnetic field. (For example the Hall effect).
Now you are talking about Lorenz forces, not velocity,
I was referring to constant linear velocity and NOT instantaneous velocity which can be a part of accelerated motion... Electrons move with accelerated motion forming electric current which represents average velocity and not constant linear velocity... Thus Hall effect is related to dynamics of electrons... By the way, Lorentz also claimed the true force equation as his own but is should be called Laplace force as Laplace was the one who formulated the equation of force regarding constant magnetic field and current caring conductor... So, Hall effect is due to Laplace force...
0 -
Just now, studiot said:
But that is not what you wrote before.
Please, be specific and point to where I have said something different...
0 -
2 minutes ago, studiot said:
What does this mean?
It means that the Lorentz force on a charge moving with constant linear velocity in constant uniform magnetic field is zero regardless of charge magnitude q, magnetic field magnitude B and velocity magnitude v... Thus F = q * v * B = 0...
0 -
The orientation o charge velocity is irrelevant because constant linear velocity is not affected by magnetic field regardless of magnitudes of both, field and charge...
If such phenomena existed then we would have inertial navigation device 100 years ago due to simply moving wire in Earth's magnetic field...
Lorentz was the inventor of aether and I suspect that is why he formulated his mathematical model assuming existence of his Luminiferous aether:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether
44 minutes ago, Strange said:Where does it say that a static wire in a static magnetic field will generate a voltage?
But that is not what you have. You have a static wire. No moving charged particles. No moving magnetic field.
You have a uniform, static, unchanging, non-varying magnetic field.
You have a static, non-moving wire in that uniform, static, unchanging, non-varying magnetic field.
Theory says you will get NO voltage. What does your experiment show? NO VOLTAGE.
What is wrong with that?
To my knowledge it is irrelevant what moves and what remains still as long as there is relative motion... It is called simple relativity... Lorentz absolute motion is a failed concept...
0 -
1 hour ago, Strange said:
Therefore no voltage generated.
What is the point of this thread? You get exactly the results expected, and yet you seem confused by it.
If you read the thread carefully you will find out that Lorentz claimed otherwise. You do get voltage proportional to the velocity of charge particle moving in uniform magnetic field... There is even online calculator where the apparent Motional EMF can be calculated: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/genwir3.html#c1
0
Motional EMF
in Speculations
Posted
Read the post history carefully or try to remember because I stated at least twice that is Lorentz who claims without experimental confirmation that there is EMF on wire moving with constant linear velocity in uniform and constant magnetic field... Static has many meanings but exact conditions are specified clearly... See the MIT's reference in my updated paper...