Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 21/12/2019 09:47:40
THIS POST AND OTHERS BY THE SAME POSTER APPEAR TO BE EDUCATIONAL IN NATURE, HOWEVER THEY CONTAIN SERIOUS ERRORS AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES.
No, Faraday’s law of induction is actually not true.
One of the fundamental laws of electromagnetism is the “Faraday's law of induction”. This law states that the induced voltage in a wire loop is equal to the speed of change of the magnetic flux enclosed with the loop, or V=dΦ/dt. In the textbooks is often given an example of a loop in the shape of a rectangle which rotates in a magnetic field.
rotating loop.JPG (9.01 kB . 245x194 - viewed 7710 times)What is meant by “the speed of change of the magnetic flux enclosed with the loop”?
To explain this, we will make a comparison. If we hold a ring in front of our eyes as if we want to see through it, then it has a shape of a circle. If we turn it 90°, we only see a line. In every other intermediate position of the ring, we see an ellipse. In the first position, the ring has the maximum area in front of our eyes; in the second, the minimum, i.e., zero. If the ring starts to rotate about its axis starting from the second position (0) and has turned 180°, then the area we see in the course of this rotation can be represented with a sine curve of half a period.
Similarly, when the wire loop is in the vertical position (image above), then the magnetic flux is zero, and when the wire loop is in the horizontal position, then the flux is maximal. This flux changes according to a sine function, too. So, when the flux is maximal, then the speed of its change is minimal, more precisely, zero, because the slope of the sine curve in this point is zero. But when the flux is minimal, then the speed of its change is maximal, because the slope of the curve in this point is maximal.
So, from the Faraday's law of induction it follows that when the wire loop is in vertical position, then the induced current in the loop is maximal; and when it is in horizontal position, then the current in the loop is zero.
I claim that just the opposite is true, because it is not relevant the speed of change of the magnetic flux through the loop, but the speed of the wire towards the magnet or away from it. In producing the current in the rectangular loop, only the two shorter sides of the loop play a role. When these sides are nearest the magnet, then their speed of moving towards or moving away from the magnet is zero, thus the current is also zero.
For better understanding, let’s take a look at this picture. The projection of the circling dot on the vertical axis behaves like a pendulum. When the projection dot is at the top or at the bottom of the vertical axis, its speed is zero. And when it is in the middle, its speed is maximal. The same concept applies also to the two mentioned sides of the wire loop.
circling dot.JPG (7.29 kB . 437x186 - viewed 7747 times)I claim that the concept of the contemporary physics called “magnetic flux through a surface” is an absolute misconception, something that is not founded in the reality. What real is and what relevant is to this case are two things: first, the strength of the magnetic field, and second, the speed of the conductor towards the magnet or away from it, that is, the component of this speed which is in line with the magnetic lines of force, not the component perpendicular to them, as it follows from the Faraday’s law of induction.
As a consequence of this misconception follows another, and that is the misexplanation of the working principle of synchronous generators and motors. Let’s look at this picture from a textbook called “Elektronik 1” from the following authors: Helmut Röder, Heinz Ruckriegel, Willi Schleer, Dieter Schnell, Dietmar Schmid, Werner Zieß, Heinz Häberle. The picture refers to synchronous motor, but it can also refer to synchronous generator. On the picture we see a magnet, three coils and three sine curves: black, blue and red. The black sine curve corresponds to the current of the black coil. From the picture we see that in the first position of the rotating magnet the current in the black coil is zero; in the second position, the current in that coil is maximal.
GENERATOR MOTOR MISCONCEPTION.JPG (55.39 kB . 602x440 - viewed 7934 times)Just the opposite is actually true (this means: in the first position the current in the black coil is maximal; in the second, it is zero). And with this new explanation the torque from the coils upon the rotating magnet is the same at every moment of time, as it should be for its smooth rotation.
The other concept is contradictory, because the torque is not the same at every moment. Let’s take a look at the second position of the magnet when it is in line with the black coil (the current at this moment is at maximum)(the magnet rotates counter-clockwise). Until this moment the coil has attracted the white pole; then the pole goes to the left side of the coil; the coil still has the current in the same direction, which means that it still attracts the pole and thus acts against the direction of rotation. At the same moment (i.e., when the magnet is in line with the black coil) the blue and the red coil have equal currents in the same direction and both act on the opposite pole of the magnet. Thereby both exercise an attractive force. It follows that the red coil attracts the lower pole of the magnet in the direction of rotation and the blue coil attracts it against the direction of rotation. We see that on two places, both up and down, contradictory effects take place. When the upper pole of the magnet has passed the black coil a little bit, then of the three coils only the effect of the red one on the magnet will be in the direction of rotation, making the whole assembly impossible.
When the pole of the rotating magnet is moving towards the coil, then the coil attracts it. When the pole is exactly in line with the coil, then the current comes to zero, the magnetic field, too. Then a current flow begins in the contrary direction, the magnetic field of the coil is reversed and it begins to repel the pole of the magnet. This applies to a motor. The reverse applies to a generator.
I have great esteem for Michael Faraday and have searched his work to find where he has defined this law, but unsuccessfully. If someone can cite where it is, I will be very grateful to him/her.
P.S. Consider this very well-known experiment: we move a magnet in and out of a solenoid. Instead of moving the magnet, we can move the solenoid.
Is the wire of the solenoid moving perpendicular to the magnetic lines of force, or is it moving in line with them?
P.P.S. Consider also the following experiment: from a lacquered copper wire we cut off twenty to thirty pieces of about 10 cm. From them we form a bundle of parallel wires and connect the two ends with one more wire each. The other ends of these two wires are connected to a sensitive analog ammeter. We hold the bundle horizontally and move quickly a strong and broad magnet downwards on its left side. The pointer of the instrument will make a deflection to one side. If we now move the magnet quickly downwards on the right side of the bundle, the instrument will make a deflection to the opposite side. The magnetic flux that we have produced in the wire is now in the opposite direction to the one in the first case, which is why the deflection is in the opposite direction. The motion of the magnet produces current even if we only approach it to the bundle from one side without lowering it below the bundle. In this case the current is somewhat weaker. But if we now move the magnet down to the middle of the bundle, the instrument won’t show any current, because the left and the right halve of the magnet act on opposite sides of the bundle, canceling each other out.
We can do the experiment with only a single wire instead of a bundle, as long as we have a very strong magnet and a very sensitive ammeter.
You can imagine that inside this wire there is a propeller or there are many propellers in a row. When you turn a propeller manually from the left side, then it is turning in one direction and it is blowing on one side (plus), but it is suctioning on the other side (minus). When you turn the propeller from the right side, then it is turning in the contrary direction and the air current is in the opposite direction. But you cannot turn the propeller from above. Exactly the same picture we have with the magnet and the wire.
propeller analogy.JPG (10.88 kB . 400x221 - viewed 7856 times)P.P.S. The shape of the magnetic forces in and in the vicinity of the poles of a, let’s say, cylindrical magnet is twisted, similar to a stranded wire.
stranded wire.JPG (6.64 kB . 450x200 - viewed 8193 times)When we lower the magnet on one side of a metal wire, then we can imagine something similar to two helical gears at angle of 90 degrees. The twisted field of the permanent magnet is the one gear; the induced magnetic field in the wire, which is also around the wire and is also spiral-shaped, is the other gear.
The twisted field of the permanent magnet is static when the magnet is not moving. When the magnet is moving, then its field is moving together with the magnet. This moving magnetic field we can call a magnetic wind. When we lower the magnet on one side of a metal wire, then this magnetic wind generates another magnetic wind in the wire, whose effect is tangible also around it. This opposes to the first, just as a mechanical gear would offer a resistance to another gear by which is moved. And just as the resistance of the second gear is greater when the load on it greater, so it is the resistance of the induced magnetic field to the moving magnetic field when the electrical load in the circuit is greater.
When we generate electric current in a solenoid by moving a magnet in and out of it, then we have a device very similar to the mechanical “push and spin” devices, which can be found in kids toys, ashtrays etc.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/12/2019 11:54:33
Please explain how things actually work.
All the designs are based on the idea that the physics is correct.
If the physics is wrong, how does the design work?
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 21/12/2019 13:07:50
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/12/2019 14:15:28
The design works because of a lot of practical work of many people through many generations, not because the physics is correct.You seem to have missed the point.
Faraday's law of induction is vital to a lot of design.
It feeds into Maxwell's equations so, if you were right it wouldn't just be all the designs for motors, generators that failed (and even then people would have noticed the discrepancy.)
The whole science of radio transmission wouldn't work.
I know I keep saying this but, you really should learn some science before trying to pick holes in it.
All you are currently doing is demonstration your own lack of understanding.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/12/2019 14:25:19
As you say the "induced voltage in a wire loop is equal to the speed of change of the magnetic flux enclosed with the loop, or V=dΦ/dt. "
And, from your picture of the circling dot it's clear that near the top and bottom of the circle, the rate of change of the enclosed field is zero, and that's when the induced voltage is zero.
At the top and bottom of the circle the dot is travelling more or less horizontally- which means the wire moves along the magnetic field, rather than cutting through it.
That's why the induced voltage there is zero.
I think you have mistaken the field for the rate of change of the field.
At any rate, you are clearly wrong. Such a fundamental issue in physics wold have been spotted a long time ago.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/12/2019 14:26:20
I have great esteem for Michael Faraday and have searched his work to find where he has defined this law, but unsuccessfully. If someone can cite where it is, I will be very grateful to him/her.Can you read Latin?
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 22/12/2019 12:18:06
And, from your picture of the circling dot it's clear that near the top and bottom of the circle, the rate of change of the enclosed field is zero, and that's when the induced voltage is zero.Your head is full of envy, so you cannot read and think clearly.
The example of the circling dot actually applies to my explanation and has nothing to do at all with the rate of change of the flux enclosed with the loop.
The example of the ring which rotates in front of our eyes has rather to do with the standard explanation, i.e., with the Faraday’s law. When the loop in the presented image in my original post is in vertical position, then the flux through it is zero, but the speed of change at that moment is maximal. So, the current is also allegedly maximal. But I assert that in that moment the current is zero, because the speed of moving towards or away from the magnet of the relevant side of the loop’s wire comes to zero.
The rotating loop doesn’t produce an alternating current, but a variable direct current (drawing below). I haven’t made this experiment, but I can say that for sure. Actually I doubt that many people have made it, because the experimental setup is not easy to prepare.
VARIABLE DC.JPG (7.59 kB . 509x170 - viewed 7378 times)Many people comment on the part with the rotating loop (I have posted this text also in other forums), but nobody comments on the part related to the synchronous generator and motor, that is, on the part related to the image from the German textbook. Why? I know why. Because the misconception is here strikingly obvious.
I can’t read Latin, but if you have a citation where Faraday has defined this law, just post it. I will find someone to translate it to me.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/12/2019 14:51:33
Your head is full of envy,It is fairly clear that I think you are a fool.
Even if I was wrong about that, I'd have no cause to envy you.
The rotating loop doesn’t produce an alternating current,This would be news to the people who make generators.
I haven’t made this experiment, but I can say that for sure. Actually I doubt that many people have made it, because the experimental setup is not easy to prepare.It's a high school experiment.
You have got the wrong answer.
As I said, you should try learning.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 26/12/2019 10:50:39
Most of Michael Faraday's books were written in English. In his time, Latin was no longer the main language for scientific publications.I have great esteem for Michael Faraday and have searched his work to find where he has defined this law, but unsuccessfully. If someone can cite where it is, I will be very grateful to him/her.Can you read Latin?
https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/112273.Michael_Faraday
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday#Bibliography
Post by: evan_au on 26/12/2019 21:06:54
Quote from: OP
their speed of moving towards or moving away from the magnet is zero, thus the current is also zero.This presumes a purely resistive load.
If the load has an inductive or capacitive component, then current will be flowing when the wire is not moving relative to the magnet.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 30/12/2019 07:37:53
Most of Michael Faraday's books were written in English. In his time, Latin was no longer the main language for scientific publications.Dear Hamdani,
I am pretty sure that Faraday didn't define the law which bears his name neither in Latin nor in English. The Bored Chemist is just bluffing.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/12/2019 12:20:12
The Bored Chemist is just bluffing.Guess again
Much of the correspondence on science at that time wasn't in English.
I'm sure we are all waiting for you to answer my question
If it's "wrong", how come it works?
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 10/01/2020 18:21:53
Much of the correspondence on science at that time wasn't in English.It is completely irrelevant whether it was in English or Latin. You have promised a quotation from Faraday in Latin where he has defined the law of induction. But you are just a bluffer. You don't have it.
I'm sure we are all waiting for you to answer my questionWhat is it that works? The machines work, surely, the generators and motors. But do you believe that Ferrari, Dolivo-Dobrovolsky, Tesla and many others during their work on the construction of the generators and motors had in their heads the Faraday's law? It's ridiculous. They didn't give a toss about the theory. They wanted to make something that works and left the theory to the theorists. They were surely no theorists.
If it's "wrong", how come it works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/01/2020 18:32:12
You have promised a quotation from Faraday in LatinNo I did not.
I was warning you that any original documentation from that period might not be much use.
What is it that works?Your computer.
The fibre optics used in the internet.
Essentially you are asking the wrong question.
You should be asking "What doesn't work?"
Because, if you were right the answer would be "everything more complicated than a steam engine".
Do you think people are still using generators designed by Tesla?
Don't you understand that design has moved on since then and now relies on the theories that you are saying (without any evidence) are false?
Are you actually able to answer my question?
Please explain how things actually work.
All the designs are based on the idea that the physics is correct.
If the physics is wrong, how does the design work?
Faraday's law of induction is vital to a lot of design.
It feeds into Maxwell's equations so, if you were right it wouldn't just be all the designs for motors, generators that failed (and even then people would have noticed the discrepancy.)
The whole science of radio transmission wouldn't work.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 20/02/2020 23:56:14
Faraday's law of induction is vital to a lot of design.
It feeds into Maxwell's equations so, if you were right it wouldn't just be all the designs for motors, generators that failed (and even then people would have noticed the discrepancy.)
I haven't seen a comment of yours on the topic "Is the explanation of the working principle of synchronous generator and motor true?" and it is there already ten days.
What's the matter?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78617.0
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2020 09:53:40
If you posted less balderdash I mightn't miss bits of it.Faraday's law of induction is vital to a lot of design.
It feeds into Maxwell's equations so, if you were right it wouldn't just be all the designs for motors, generators that failed (and even then people would have noticed the discrepancy.)
I haven't seen a comment of yours on the topic "Is the explanation of the working principle of synchronous generator and motor true?" and it is there already ten days.
What's the matter?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78617.0
I have not seen your post yet.
What odds would you give me that I can't point out that it's wrong?
(You might want to re-read this thread first)
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 21/02/2020 12:35:22
What odds would you give me that I can't point out that it's wrong?Since you are the smartest man in the world, the odds are zero.
I am all ear.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2020 12:39:41
I have explained that in this thread "Is Faraday's law of induction true?" https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?No you haven't.
By the way, is that whole post just dedicated to the fact that there's a mistake in the drawing?
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 21/02/2020 18:38:21
It didn't take me long to find a bit that was wrong.LOL, the smartest man in the world doesn't know what to say.I have explained that in this thread "Is Faraday's law of induction true?" https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?By the way, is that whole post just dedicated to the fact that there's a mistake in the drawing?
No you haven't.
By the way, the error is not accidental. The same picture can be found in many textbooks.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/02/2020 19:24:36
the smartest man in the world doesn't know what to say.I wouldn't know about him.
But I knew what to say.
What I said was that you were wrong- because you are.
Post by: evan_au on 21/02/2020 21:00:34
Quote from: Mitko Gorgiev
do you believe that Ferrari, Dolivo-Dobrovolsky, Tesla and many others during their work on the construction of the generators and motors had in their heads the Faraday's law? It's ridiculous.I assume that you are talking about the electrical engineers who design the electrical motors that go into electric cars?
Having done an electrical engineering course (including introductory subjects on power engineering), I can assure you that they are taught Faraday's law.
Modern designers would use modelling software which incorporates Maxwell's Equations (which combines the findings of Gauss, Faraday and Ampere). And the software models real magnetic materials and real heat flows.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations
As for having Faraday's law "in their heads", after a while working with a set of equations, it does become somewhat intuitive; effectively your brain can model what is going on, even before clicking "Start" on the simulation software. That's what allows the human to tweak the design to find the optimum solution with the materials at hand.
Post by: Colin2B on 21/02/2020 22:23:20
Having done an electrical engineering course (including introductory subjects on power engineering), I can assure you that they are taught Faraday's law.It’s even taught in secondary school physics and as @evan_au says, it becomes intuitive, second nature.
.... As for having Faraday's law "in their heads", after a while working with a set of equations, it does become somewhat intuitive; effectively your brain can model what is going on,
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 21/02/2020 22:54:53
Mikhail Dolivo-Dobrovolsky is the father of the electric generators and motors from the end of the 19th century. He and the others have nothing to do with electric cars.Quote from: Mitko Gorgievdo you believe that Ferrari, Dolivo-Dobrovolsky, Tesla and many others during their work on the construction of the generators and motors had in their heads the Faraday's law? It's ridiculous.I assume that you are talking about the electrical engineers who design the electrical motors that go into electric cars?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Dolivo-Dobrovolsky
Having done an electrical engineering course (including introductory subjects on power engineering), I can assure you that they are taught Faraday's law.Almost everyone who goes in school is taught electromagnetism, including Faraday's law, but that doesn't mean that the law is true.
The designers work on the basis of trial and error method, not on the basis of mathematical formulas.
Besides, the Faraday's law in the textbooks is mostly "demonstrated" (nowhere is demonstrated live) by a rotating loop in a magnetic field. There is no generator in reality that works on this basis. All generators work on the basis of a rotating magnet.
I also claim that in the famous rotating loop no current is induced at all.
Please see "What type of current is induced in a wire loop which rotates in a magnetic field?"
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78515.0
What does it mean "becomes intuitive"? It means nothing to me. Through the explanations of mine the things become consciously comprehensible. Isn't consciously comprehensible what I am talking about in the just linked thread?
Also in this: "Is the explanation of working principle of synchronous generator and motor true?" https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78617.0
Yes, it is. But although you perfectly understand what I am talking about, you can't get used to the shock that the whole theory of electromagnetism is ruined. A new theory is coming, whether someone likes it or not.
Nobody can stop the truth.
Post by: jerrygg38 on 22/02/2020 14:38:15
What is it that works? The machines work, surely, the generators and motors. But do you believe that Ferrari, Dolivo-Dobrovolsky, Tesla and many others during their work on the construction of the generators and motors had in their heads the Faraday's law? It's ridiculous. They didn't give a toss about the theory. They wanted to make something that works and left the theory to the theorists. They were surely no theorists.
GG: In basic engineering school and also in technical HS classes, Faradays laws was experimented with millions of times in the past. It is just basic electrical theory. AC generators are interesting. The current flow for a resistive load is in phase but if you have an inductive load is shifted by 90 degrees lag. The same is true of a capacitive load but the shift leads.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2020 14:43:52
All generators work on the basis of a rotating magnet.Would you like another guess?
What does it mean "becomes intuitive"?It means something, which was not initially "intuitive" becomes so through use.
Anyone who has used some bit of obscure knowledge until it became familiar would understand this.
It means nothing to me.That tells us something...
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2020 14:45:13
. But although you perfectly understand what I am talking about, you can't get used to the shock that the whole theory of electromagnetism is ruined.Thus far, you have shown that there's a poorly drawn diagram in a textbook.
That's not the end of civilisation as we know it.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 22/02/2020 18:29:38
Yes, please.All generators work on the basis of a rotating magnet.Would you like another guess?
"Consciously comprehend" is a level higher than "become intuitive".What does it mean "becomes intuitive"?It means something, which was not initially "intuitive" becomes so through use.
Anyone who has used some bit of obscure knowledge until it became familiar would understand this.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 22/02/2020 18:46:51
"Poorly drawn diagram in a textbook", LOL.. But although you perfectly understand what I am talking about, you can't get used to the shock that the whole theory of electromagnetism is ruined.Thus far, you have shown that there's a poorly drawn diagram in a textbook.
That's not the end of civilisation as we know it.
It is a poorly drawn diagram in millions of textbooks all over the world through a whole century.
The error is not accidental. It is a consequence of the Faraday's law of induction.
It is certainly not the end of the civilization. But it is the end of the indisputable authority of the "Big brother" called "Science".
Post by: Origin on 23/02/2020 02:20:31
Quote
Is Faraday's law of induction true?Yes
When a new motor or generator is designed it is first modeled, one of the principle aspects of the model is Faradays law.
It seems that you don't know what you are talking about
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 23/02/2020 08:48:23
I have shown much more than that, but you are too biased and you cannot admit it.. But although you perfectly understand what I am talking about, you can't get used to the shock that the whole theory of electromagnetism is ruined.Thus far, you have shown that there's a poorly drawn diagram in a textbook.
Here is one thing: although we have powerful computers today, this mankind has never really understood what is "one" and what is "zero" on physical level.
Proof: there is still no comment on this thread of mine:
"What are digital logic circuits?"
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78466.0
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2020 16:20:01
I have shown much more than that,Where?
Not, apparently, on this site where you have mainly posted nonsense.
Post by: Origin on 23/02/2020 16:29:19
Here is one thing: although we have powerful computers today, this mankind has never really understood what is "one" and what is "zero" on physical level.Uh, OK, that's a weird thing to say.
there is still no comment on this thread of mine:Perhaps people find your pseudoscience uninteresting?
Post by: jerrygg38 on 23/02/2020 22:57:30
When a new motor or generator is designed it is first modeled, one of the principle aspects of the model is Faradays law.
It seems that you don't know what you are talking about
GG: How do you find truth? One way "Deny everything until you can no longer deny it. You have found a common truth. Yet others will keep denying until they can no longer do so. Sometimes it takes them a lifetime.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 23/02/2020 23:27:06
How do you find truth? One way "Deny everything until you can no longer deny it. You have found a common truth. Yet others will keep denying until they can no longer do so. Sometimes it takes them a lifetime.I can't quite follow your thought, but I can say this: I have denied the Faraday's law with arguments presented in my original post and in this post of mine "What type of current is induced in a wire loop which rotates in a magnetic field?" https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78515.0
You and the others "deny" my assertions only by saying that I am wrong.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 24/02/2020 07:46:19
Mitkog G saysHow was the Faraday's law experimented with millions of times in the past? Was it with a wire loop which rotates in a magnetic field? Have you ever seen this experiment live? I don't think so. If someone has seen it, let him put it on YouTube. There, on YouTube, I see only animations, nothing more. Until I see this experiment live, I will consider it only as a thought experiment which is still not carried out in reality. If someone has the means to carry it out, let him also connect it to an oscilloscope. Let we see what the oscilloscope will show, since I claim that no current will be induced in the loop.
What is it that works? The machines work, surely, the generators and motors. But do you believe that Ferrari, Dolivo-Dobrovolsky, Tesla and many others during their work on the construction of the generators and motors had in their heads the Faraday's law? It's ridiculous. They didn't give a toss about the theory. They wanted to make something that works and left the theory to the theorists. They were surely no theorists.
GG: In basic engineering school and also in technical HS classes, Faradays laws was experimented with millions of times in the past. It is just basic electrical theory. AC generators are interesting. The current flow for a resistive load is in phase but if you have an inductive load is shifted by 90 degrees lag. The same is true of a capacitive load but the shift leads.
Please see "What type of current is induced in a wire loop which rotates in a magnetic field?" https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78515.0
There is no phase shift neither in synchronous generators nor in motors. Phase shift has nothing to do with that we are talking about here.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 09:02:35
"Consciously comprehend" is a level higher than "become intuitive".No, it is not.
It's like driving a car.
You start off having to carefully concentrate on each action but, after a while, it becomes "automatic" and you can do it almost without thinking.
So, once again, on the facts, you are wrong.
Worse than that, you are conceited enough to try to argue about meanings of words after you already said you don't know what they mean.
How dumb is that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 09:26:00
Have you ever seen this experiment live? I don't think so. If someone has seen it, let him put it on YouTube.I did it at school
Youtube didn't exist at the time.
The experiment confirmed Faraday's law.
Can you imagine the fun we would have had (as students) if the experiment hadn't confirmed what the teacher had said?
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 24/02/2020 10:45:37
How did the experiment confirm the law?Have you ever seen this experiment live? I don't think so. If someone has seen it, let him put it on YouTube.I did it at school
Youtube didn't exist at the time.
The experiment confirmed Faraday's law.
Can you imagine the fun we would have had (as students) if the experiment hadn't confirmed what the teacher had said?
What did you see?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 10:50:59
What would you expect me to have seen?
How would what you expect differ from what Faraday's laws say?
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/02/2020 10:58:43
All generators work on the basis of a rotating magnet.Homopolar generators usually use rotating disc.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 24/02/2020 11:33:47
An alternating voltage on an oscilloscopeI don't believe you. You are bluffing just as you were bluffing about the quotation from Faraday.
What would you expect me to have seen?
How would what you expect differ from what Faraday's laws say?
As I see, you are from UK. It is a rich country and the schools are surely good equipped, much better than in your time. Please go in some school and repeat the experiment and put it on YouTube.
Post by: hamdani yusuf on 24/02/2020 13:56:10
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 14:43:46
Rather than calling me a liar, just answer the questionsAn alternating voltage on an oscilloscopeI don't believe you. You are bluffing just as you were bluffing about the quotation from Faraday.
What would you expect me to have seen?
How would what you expect differ from what Faraday's laws say?
As I see, you are from UK. It is a rich country and the schools are surely good equipped, much better than in your time. Please go in some school and repeat the experiment and put it on YouTube.
An alternating voltage on an oscilloscope
What would you expect me to have seen?
How would what you expect differ from what Faraday's laws say?
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 24/02/2020 14:47:44
Here I found a youtube video showing what would happen in rotating coil experiment. Just skip to 1:55.I see a flaw in this experimental setup, but to explain it I have to draw something which I cannot do at the moment. I will post soon what I think about this.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 14:53:22
It's rather more realistic. It uses 6 coils and, when the magnet is "pointing at" the coil, the voltage is zero.
Just because you found one sloppy diagram in a textbook does not mean that the world of physics is wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 14:54:28
I see a flaw in this experimental setup, but to explain it I have to draw something which I cannot do at the moment. I will post soon what I think about this.
While you are sharpening your pencil, you can answer my questions.
What would you expect me to have seen?
How would what you expect differ from what Faraday's laws say?
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 24/02/2020 14:55:17
I expect that you have seen a straight line on the scope. Even if I am wrong about this (which I am not, but let us assume that I am), this still doesn't tell at which moment the current is at maximum, what was the initial assertion of my original post.Rather than calling me a liar, just answer the questionsAn alternating voltage on an oscilloscopeI don't believe you. You are bluffing just as you were bluffing about the quotation from Faraday.
What would you expect me to have seen?
How would what you expect differ from what Faraday's laws say?
As I see, you are from UK. It is a rich country and the schools are surely good equipped, much better than in your time. Please go in some school and repeat the experiment and put it on YouTube.An alternating voltage on an oscilloscope
What would you expect me to have seen?
How would what you expect differ from what Faraday's laws say?
Hamdani has posted a video which disproves what I say. I will answer soon.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 15:10:48
I expect that you have seen a straight line on the scope.If that had happened, what would the teacher have said when we all laughed at him (because he, and the textbooks. predicted AC voltage)?
That's about the least plausible outcome.
Even if I am wrong about this (which I am not, but let us assume that I am)I did the experiment.
You didn't.
This is a science page.
So, no, we do not assume that you are right and reality is wrong.
this still doesn't tell at which moment the current is at maximum,If I feed the electrical power into something like a heater which is pretty much a resistor then, by ohm's law, the current and the voltage are proportional to one another.
If one is zero, the other is also zero.
Hamdani has posted a video which disproves what I say.
Well, since we have now got- as you say- proof that you are wrong, perhaps you should apologise for calling me a liar, and for wasting everyone's time.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 24/02/2020 19:52:54
BTW, are you happier with this animation?Well, about the problem with the synchronous generators and motors we have come to the solution - to the solution of mine.
It's rather more realistic. It uses 6 coils and, when the magnet is "pointing at" the coil, the voltage is zero.
Just because you found one sloppy diagram in a textbook does not mean that the world of physics is wrong.
But who is this "Quellstrom" (the uploader of the video)? Isn't he an anonymous, a "crackpot", like some people want to call me, too. You post a video from some "crackpot" to prove that the Science is right?!!!
I have posted a picture from a textbook from seven authors, all of them professors, doctors, magisters and engineers. The book has more than ten editions and in every edition the picture is the same (to be honest I have seen only two editions, the 8th and the 9th).
So, you call "sloppy" the book from academics, and a video from a "crackpot" is not sloppy.
I prove the Science wrong on works of professors, you prove the Science right on works of crackpots. There is a difference.
Here is yet another example of it:
http://xn--drmstrre-64ad.dk/wp-content/wind/miller/windpower%20web/en/tour/wtrb/syncgen.htm
If you think consequently, you will understand that the error is not accidental. It is a consequence of the Faraday's law.
If you have a reply to this, please wait with it, I have to prepare an answer for Hamdani.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 20:29:03
But who is this "Quellstrom"I don't know, and I don't care.
I can judge the video for myself.
I have posted a picture from a textbook from seven authors, all of them professors, doctors, magisters and engineers. The book has more than ten editions and in every edition the picture is the same (to be honest I have seen only two editions, the 8th and the 9th).And yet, we both agree that it is wrong.
Your idea of clipping the picture from one end of the sequence and putting it at the start is certainly an improvement.
It is a consequence of the Faraday's law.That picture in the textbook is totally inconsistent with Faraday's law.
It certainly isn't a consequence of it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2020 20:30:25
I prove the Science wrong on works of professors,You don't even understand Ohm's law.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 25/02/2020 11:55:37
Here I found a youtube video showing what would happen in rotating coil experiment. Just skip to 1:55.This video does not disprove what I claim in the original post of this thread, but in the thread "What type of current is induced in a wire loop which rotates in a magnetic field?".
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78515.0
There I claim that no current is induced in a wire loop which rotates in a magnetic field.
In the video above I assume two flaws. If the flaws are eliminated, I claim that no current will be induced in the loop.
To explain the first flaw, I have drawn the following figure:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
In the figure (a) a wire is moving vertically towards the left edge of the magnet. A current is induced in the wire which flows towards us. In the figure (b) the wire is moving towards the right edge of the magnet. A current is induced in the wire which flows away from us. In the figure (c) the wire is moving exactly towards the middle of the magnet. No current is induced in this wire. In the figure (d) the wire is very little shifted from the middle to the right and is moving vertically towards the magnet. In this wire a current will be induced, but significantly weaker than that of the figure (b). The more the wire is shifted to the right, the stronger will be the current in it. It is the strongest when the wire is moving vertically towards the edge of the magnet. If we draw a graph, it will look approximately like this:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Why do I say this? In the mentioned thread I claim that no current is induced in the rotating loop because the currents in the opposite and relevant sides of the loop cancel each other out. But this is valid only if both sides are at equal distances from the middle of the magnet. If they are not, then the two currents are not with equal strength and cannot cancel each other out fully.
In the linked video I notice that the wire loop is shifted a little upwards.
To understand the second flaw, please read first this post "Is electric current induced in a wire when it is moving perpendicularly to the magnetic lines of force or when it is moving in line with them?"
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78772.0
The shape of the magnet in the video above is similar to the shape of the magnet in the video of the just linked thread. It has also a vertical component which can induce a current in the loop. This component must be eliminated to carry out the experiment as it should be carried out. The experimental setup should look like this:
[ Invalid Attachment ]
If these flaws are eliminated from the experimental setup, I still claim that no current will be induced in the wire loop.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2020 19:27:39
There I claim that no current is induced in a wire loop which rotates in a magnetic field.And all the evidence (including that video) shows that you are wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2020 21:30:14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_inductor_compass
https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/lab/vm/inductor-en.php
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 27/02/2020 12:31:08
I am not wrong. The experiment in the video is not properly conducted. I explain that in my last post of this thread.There I claim that no current is induced in a wire loop which rotates in a magnetic field.And all the evidence (including that video) shows that you are wrong.
Do you want to comment on this post of mine:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78772.msg594433#msg594433
But this time not with "You are wrong". Try once to write something which deals with the essence of the post.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2020 12:56:43
Have you heard of earth inductors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_inductor_compass
https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/lab/vm/inductor-en.php
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 04/03/2020 14:48:50
Would you elaborate how the earth inductor contradicts my assertions?Have you heard of earth inductors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_inductor_compass
https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/lab/vm/inductor-en.php
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/03/2020 19:30:56
An earth inductor actually lets you find out what happens when you move a wire through a (very nearly) uniform field.Would you elaborate how the earth inductor contradicts my assertions?Have you heard of earth inductors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_inductor_compass
https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/lab/vm/inductor-en.php
People have done this (originally as novel science, recently as a school demonstration) for a few hundred years.
If your idea of what happens differs from what faraday's law predicts then you need to explain why countless experimenters didn't notice.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 09/03/2020 19:17:15
Would you elaborate how the earth inductor contradicts my assertions?
An earth inductor actually lets you find out what happens when you move a wire through a (very nearly) uniform field.And what is that ?
People have done this (originally as novel science, recently as a school demonstration) for a few hundred years.Where are those school demonstrations? Are there some YT or other videos?
That would be a task for some future historians.
If your idea of what happens differs from what faraday's law predicts then you need to explain why countless experimenters didn't notice.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2020 13:05:55
Can we just assume for the minute that you are wrong, and I will fill in the details when i get home?
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 11/03/2020 19:19:58
I'm away on holiday at the moment and the internet connection's not great.Despite your not very polite attacks on me, I wish you a peaceful holiday without much talk about viruses. :)
Can we just assume for the minute that you are wrong, and I will fill in the details when i get home?
Still, I am not wrong and I am ready to defend my claims even in a public debate. But under one condition: the debate should also include performing the experiments live.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2020 16:31:59
the debate should also include performing the experiments live.OK
Go ahead and perform them.
Where are those school demonstrations? Are there some YT or other videos?Did you know that school demonstrations generally happen in schools?
Her's a related video.
http://site-children.com/physics11-41.htm
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 14/03/2020 10:11:51
I don't have the means to carry out the experiments. If a debate should take place, I would search for donations to prepare all the experiments I plan to perform.the debate should also include performing the experiments live.OK
Go ahead and perform them.
Her's a related video.I still cannot figure out how the Earth inductor contradicts my assertions.
http://site-children.com/physics11-41.htm
You post links, but you don't elaborate anything.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/03/2020 12:14:56
I still cannot figure out how the Earth inductor contradicts my assertions.I'm not responsible for what you are able to understand.
I did explain it to you. I'm sorry you can't follow the simple deduction.
If your idea of what happens differs from what faraday's law predicts then you need to explain why countless experimenters didn't notice.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2020 11:52:35
... and I am ready to defend my claims
I don't have the means to carry out the experiments.
Choose one or the other.
They can not both be right.