A green and clean environment is a human right!
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hydrocars on August 11, 2021, 21:49:24 pm
-
From the artic to Antarctica as Question that needs to be answered here on this forum as a test of your knowledge please every reading member here try and explain this right hand rule.
Could one forum member please contribute and step forward with their explanation of this rule to try to explain this rule in your own words to other members to try and gain an understanding of how this rule works. Please do not worry if you have little or no understanding. It is highly expected what follows will be missunderstandings.
After a few post, and a few questions from me I will make a final post that will challenge world arguments. And why such a rule was set into place to confuse you, not confuse the polar bears. As this post is put here to highly educated you in it's end so other members will never be confused again with such a confusion tactic like the sickening one used here to block your mind. With that said, if one desires, feel free to draw on your clear glass boards or even your toilet paper rolls.
Now would any member please step forward and try to explain this theory. And would several other members please follow so that we can complete this thread. Thank you!
-
this rule helps identifying where is the directions of magnetic field and force relative to current or vice versa all 3 are perpendicular to each other...
so magnetic field is in one direction current crossing the magnetic field perpendicularly will create a force... if the current is parallel to the magnetic field theres is going to be a force too though but that is not the idea here...
So this force is the same as electromotive force that is applied as current or can be obtained...
so a conductor crossing a field will generate a voltage this voltage counter act the applied voltage is known as back emf This counter voltage actually create a kind of breaking or repel force to the movement so it consume power....
work is force over distance
this is how generators transformer and motors work... in the case of transformers if works because the magnetic field changing is equivalent to the change in magnetic field of the conductor aproaching a magnet or traveling along a field... thar is analysed by the flux density etc
-
We also have to consider the magnetic curl. The way the flux lines curl around the wire. With a motor, the curl goes one way, and the curls go the other way with a generator.
Can you use the same wire for both the motor and generator?
-
if its dc motor with brushes you could pulse in and the voltage generated would be in reverse direction so current cant flow since the source is a block for it... thinking about this a lot lately and how meyer could have used it..
-
Fact check;
Let's assume we have a vertical inductor glued to a table top. Let's assume I connect the bottom inductor lead to the positive terminal of a battery, and the top terminal inductor lead to the negative terminal of the same battery, what pole field would the top of the bar be, and what pole field would the bottom of the bar be?
Please don't cheat and go assemble this, or test a inductor laying next to you. Please use the current knowledge you have on hand. If you're unable to do this in your head that's ok, just be honest and say I don't know without actually testing this. This thread posted here is a very sensitive post so please follow the requested rules, if this is done correctly there will be a reward for a number of members here.
And please each contributing member end your post/reply with a definition for the words oppose, and then initial. Thank you!
-
Y'all being scared, lazy, busy or rolling eyes at me? C'mon stevo step up, promise if it doesn't help any of you it will the next person. I haven't even gotten to the good part yet where there is no north or south pole, I haven't even taught about the parallel lines or 90 degree angles of the so called flux lines. I was hoping the northern lights would expose this dark truth...
C'mon people, at least post what you feeling, it isn't worth your time, or you may think it's stupid, just don't be closed minded, if you think I'm dumb then guess what, you can learn allot from a dummy, or even that trick question from above that can't be answered!!!
-
We also have to consider the magnetic curl. The way the flux lines curl around the wire. With a motor, the curl goes one way, and the curls go the other way with a generator.
Can you use the same wire for both the motor and generator?
and then there is counter torque and cemf. wasnt there someone with a motor/ gen with wire soldered direct to core
I just happen to be checking up on atom, copper 29 and Iron 26
-
Okay guys, what is your deal here? Now I'm getting violant! Lol j/k foreal, why are there no participates here on the questions I've ask????
-
We also have to consider the magnetic curl. The way the flux lines curl around the wire. With a motor, the curl goes one way, and the curls go the other way with a generator.
Can you use the same wire for both the motor and generator?
and then there is counter torque and cemf. wasnt there someone with a motor/ gen with wire soldered direct to core
I just happen to be checking up on atom, copper 29 and Iron 26
That is interesting!
-
Okay guys, what is your deal here? Now I'm getting violant! Lol j/k foreal, why are there no participates here on the questions I've ask????
I was going to answer your question, until you flipped out, throwing insults like the troll at ou. That's not the way to inspire participation in your discussion.
-
It is, of course, possible my answer will interest other readers.
Define the word 'oppose':
Oppose is an acronym which stands for:
Other Power Projected Onto Starting Energy.
The Starting Energy is some usual kind, such as magnetic, static, kinetic, optical, etc.
-
We have two ways to generate an electrical potential. One way is inductive, in which a magnetic field expands through a conductor. (Or contracts).
The other way uses a motional field, in which a wire and a magnetic field move relative to each other, with flux cutting through the wire, or visa versa.
So does the Right Hand Rule apply in both situations?
-
Okay guys, what is your deal here? Now I'm getting violant! Lol j/k foreal, why are there no participates here on the questions I've ask????
Violent persons are removed from this forum.... 8)
B, i have a new job since 4 months.....I work day and night...Sorry for not having time here...
-
We have two ways to generate an electrical potential. One way is inductive, in which a magnetic field expands through a conductor. (Or contracts).
The other way uses a motional field, in which a wire and a magnetic field move relative to each other, with flux cutting through the wire, or visa versa.
So does the Right Hand Rule apply in both situations?
Friction also produces a potential difference.....
-
Fact check;
Let's assume we have a vertical inductor glued to a table top. Let's assume I connect the bottom inductor lead to the positive terminal of a battery, and the top terminal inductor lead to the negative terminal of the same battery, what pole field would the top of the bar be, and what pole field would the bottom of the bar be?
Please don't cheat and go assemble this, or test a inductor laying next to you. Please use the current knowledge you have on hand. If you're unable to do this in your head that's ok, just be honest and say I don't know without actually testing this. This thread posted here is a very sensitive post so please follow the requested rules, if this is done correctly there will be a reward for a number of members here.
And please each contributing member end your post/reply with a definition for the words oppose, and then initial. Thank you!
It would be very kind of you when you made a youtube of the coil test....
Just to teach us and because i dont have the time and access to my lab....
As said, my new job is too far from my home, so i stay not at home during the week....
I try to get some lab stuf over...but till then....no change...
-
First, I'm compared to a troll at ou, second I'm told by the admin of the forum I founded violent people will be removed from a forum I created shortly before you was a part of it Stevie, don't forget I gave you this forum that I was paying to host just after I started getting death threats. If this is the way you feel of me here, then please click the admin button that removes me from this forum! My post was in no way offensive as I included It was a j/k clearly in my post. This is disrespectful at its best, so feel free to ban me from this site I named and founded since you feel these ways about me.
-
First, I'm compared to a troll at ou, second I'm told by the admin of the forum I founded violent people will be removed from a forum I created shortly before you was a part of it Stevie, don't forget I gave you this forum that I was paying to host just after I started getting death threats. If this is the way you feel of me here, then please click the admin button that removes me from this forum! My post was in no way offensive as I included It was a j/k clearly in my post. This is disrespectful at its best, so feel free to ban me from this site I named and founded since you feel these ways about me.
Brian, did you see the sunnglasses in my post? It was a joke....
I would never remove you here.
Friends for life.
-
:-* ;)
-
Just a really quick brief reply here, before my bedtime as I know we're all busy, in reference to my past post only to trim some of the edges off the ice.
As stated in the prior question of the vertical inductor, as I said the question could not be answered, and that is completely true, it simple could not be answered. The reason why my prior question on the vertical inductor could not be answered is very simple and straight forward. Only to graze the facts here I will touch base in more detail on this subject later, but for now I will share a partial answer with you to a few questions that I did ask
The vertical coil, and on the subject the polarity Field simply could not be answered because I failed to specify the direction of the inductor. The answer would have been different if I would have said the coil was clockwise/ counterclockwise, as this is a key point to understanding magnetic field and inductors.
Let me share a True Statement with many that can't get a grasp on this, as it is a very difficult mind puzzling concept.
Especially to those like me. That's slow at learning.
When any inductor is wrapped clockwise, the magnetic south pole will always be the end that's connected to the positive terminal of the battery, and the north pole Will always be the side of inductor that's connected to the negative supply of the battery.
With a counter clockwise wrap it is completely opposite, in this case the negative inductor lead of the coil will always be the south pole, and the positive inductor lead will always be the negative pole.
A wire in a straight line going straight up vertically will have it's right most side positive and left side negative with again, the positive terminal at its bottom. So this means a clockwise wrap would force the positive pole to point to the ground, and the negative pole would point towards the sky. This Never changes, which is why when you reverse the winding to counter clockwise you force the nothern pole towards the ground and the positive pile toward the sky. On a clockwise wrapped inductor no matter the polarity of the power supplie, the south pole will always remain on the positive terminal.
The definition of Initial, or the one that best fits here is, something that is already in a existing state. Once power is supplied to an inductor it's fields will oppose it's initial state. With this said, a positive north pole is not exactly understood.
It is also not understood why a compass needle can be made to point towards both the negative and positive poles of a magnet without ever altering the magnetic effect of the compass needle. This can be observed and demonstrated. Also, magnetic field lines can be seen going in 90 degree angles, and appears to be a matrix in time. I'm sure most would criticize me for stating this, but the proof is there. When you have a matrix of compasses this effect can be clearly seen.
More on the force of axis later, and how possible UFO's can generate lift or fall. As the right hand x y z axis law states the direction of force, in a number of scientific demonstrations, one of my favorites Walter lewin at mit, you can see how current flow can impose a upward force on an conductor. More on Maxwell and what happened later to amplify the magnetic effects of basic electromagnets letter, that can cause a force of ten times that would normally be present. And also how wireless electricity really works on the standing wave/emf side of things.
-
Sorry, I thought "define the word oppose" was the 'unanswerable' question. Good discussion, overall.
-
We also have to consider the magnetic curl. The way the flux lines curl around the wire. With a motor, the curl goes one way, and the curls go the other way with a generator.
Can you use the same wire for both the motor and generator?
I have this electric wheelchair that's supplied with two batteries takes forever to charge, it was given to me by an family member because I didn't want to see it scrapped since I valued the batteries and the motor as well as the transmission.
However I would charge the batteries and I would get very short rides out of the chair, it is a very quick chair! I would say anywhere from 15 to 20 mph, the only problem was I could not seem to go only a certain distance down the road out here in the country where I live. I came to the conclusion the batteries were just not holding up which later I found out to be wrong although I was running this chair at the house maximum speed.
About a week or so of piddling with this I noticed one day when I was going down a hill if I let off of the electronic throttle a tad bit the transmission would continue to turn the drive motor and the voltage indicator would peg out indicating to me that the gravity pushing me down a hill was actually charging up the batteries at a massive amount of current flow. I then experimented with going up and down hills trying to be very precise keeping my throttle at the properly tuned place and watching the voltage meter peg out as I would go down the hills even the smallest hills would seem to create a feedback charge. I managed to ride this chair after I learned how I operated for almost an endless amount of time without ever having to charge it at all. When they throttle was turned down like a disabled person would keep it it's not really a problem but there is some sort of gravitational braking system that recharges the battery as the chair tries to stop, if you keep the throttle and the correct position when racing down hills, the chair will supply you with an endless amount of operation time. So yes I would assume you can use the same wire in both a motor and generator.
-
I get all 3 fields from the right hand rule and relativity.
You can get magnetism, static electric field, and inductive field (EM wave field) from the right hand rule, it's a polarization of gravitational waves, the gravitational waves make up every elementary particle and produce interference and this is the polarization that is the magnetic field, from the magnetic field you can get all the other fields, I haven't bothered with weak force and nuclear force because these fields are still not detailed but since there is a gravity field, magnetic field, electric field, electromagnetic wave field a.k.a induction explained with this a unified field theory is possible. Superluminal magnetic field is also possible and it present everyday but it cannot be measured, it is true that magnetic flux lines are imaginary but these are the most real at the same time as the other two field static electric field and inductive electric field depends only on the relative movement of particles but the polarization is the same. In this model every particle has two QM states which describe the gravitational wave from the schrodinger equation instead of probability waves. you just replace probability with energy, the problem is that particles are said to have one qm state not two qm states, it's like combining every damn section of physics together, I ain't getting no money to do it so this hasn't been utilized, I'm sure no one will understand what I'm talking about , this demands an enormous amount of visualization and I still haven't finished with the proofs for everything. Motherfuckers are getting paid to do phds for more useless shit, I can't even get funding for some chemicals I'm developing in this corrupt shithole country, this has nothing to do with free energy, there's no such thing as free energy, you can only convert between energy, you cant get 1 from 0! I only made this post because I've already posted some shit here about this but I was wrong about the Y component for the lorrentz contraction, it was really a simple mechanism which can only be realized when observing how the interference patterns move. You can however make an advanced magnetic bottle with this so yay fusion reactors!
Imagine rotating dots on a circle, the dots are the polarization points, when a particle moves on the X axis because of relativity the dots on one side expand due to lorrentz tranformation and the dots on the other side contract, because the dots move to the top Y side the dots gain a Y component velocity, so there is a) rotation of the dots (STATIC ELECTRIC FIELD) b)when the particle moves the dots expand so the polarization is either more intense or less intense on one side (MOTIONAL MAGNETIC FIELD) c) when the particle accelerates the dots keep contracting or expanding and the dots move to the Y sides there is a Y component velocity (EM waves/induction) this relativistic effect happens for every speed v of the particle small or big
The electron spin model is entirely correct, they say the electron cant spin at speed c because the field must exceed the speed of light c but this model is correct for the energy of the electron and the energy of the gravitational waves which comprise the electron, the flux lines are the polarizations of positive and negative components of gravitational waves , can exceed speed of light c but can never be measured in our universe. The flux line is the only thing that can move higher than speed c without violating any physics law! There are no static fields as the waves keep moving , we cannot measure them as outside observers so they are only static to us until the particles start moving, this is also a relativistic phenomenon, the matter is either condensed or expanded and other matter wants to either fill or remove itself from the region so it moves to cancel everything out and reach equilibrium, the moment the last elementary particle stops moving it will be the death of our universe.
Ampere correctly assumed the flux lines as the prime mover of all fields, the solutions for the paradoxes of electromagnetism are ill-conceived only to agree with the current fashion so uni teachers can keep their fat pockets filling with cash, it's corruption everywhere.
-
I get all 3 fields from the right hand rule and relativity.
You can get magnetism, static electric field, and inductive field (EM wave field) from the right hand rule, it's a polarization of gravitational waves, the gravitational waves make up every elementary particle and produce interference and this is the polarization that is the magnetic field, from the magnetic field you can get all the other fields, I haven't bothered with weak force and nuclear force because these fields are still not detailed but since there is a gravity field, magnetic field, electric field, electromagnetic wave field a.k.a induction explained with this a unified field theory is possible. Superluminal magnetic field is also possible and it present everyday but it cannot be measured, it is true that magnetic flux lines are imaginary but these are the most real at the same time as the other two field static electric field and inductive electric field depends only on the relative movement of particles but the polarization is the same. In this model every particle has two QM states which describe the gravitational wave from the schrodinger equation instead of probability waves. you just replace probability with energy, the problem is that particles are said to have one qm state not two qm states, it's like combining every damn section of physics together, I ain't getting no money to do it so this hasn't been utilized, I'm sure no one will understand what I'm talking about , this demands an enormous amount of visualization and I still haven't finished with the proofs for everything. Motherfuckers are getting paid to do phds for more useless shit, I can't even get funding for some chemicals I'm developing in this corrupt shithole country, this has nothing to do with free energy, there's no such thing as free energy, you can only convert between energy, you cant get 1 from 0! I only made this post because I've already posted some shit here about this but I was wrong about the Y component for the lorrentz contraction, it was really a simple mechanism which can only be realized when observing how the interference patterns move. You can however make an advanced magnetic bottle with this so yay fusion reactors!
Imagine rotating dots on a circle, the dots are the polarization points, when a particle moves on the X axis because of relativity the dots on one side expand due to lorrentz tranformation and the dots on the other side contract, because the dots move to the top Y side the dots gain a Y component velocity, so there is a) rotation of the dots (STATIC ELECTRIC FIELD) b)when the particle moves the dots expand so the polarization is either more intense or less intense on one side (MOTIONAL MAGNETIC FIELD) c) when the particle accelerates the dots keep contracting or expanding and the dots move to the Y sides there is a Y component velocity (EM waves/induction) this relativistic effect happens for every speed v of the particle small or big
The electron spin model is entirely correct, they say the electron cant spin at speed c because the field must exceed the speed of light c but this model is correct for the energy of the electron and the energy of the gravitational waves which comprise the electron, the flux lines are the polarizations of positive and negative components of gravitational waves , can exceed speed of light c but can never be measured in our universe. The flux line is the only thing that can move higher than speed c without violating any physics law! There are no static fields as the waves keep moving , we cannot measure them as outside observers so they are only static to us until the particles start moving, this is also a relativistic phenomenon, the matter is either condensed or expanded and other matter wants to either fill or remove itself from the region so it moves to cancel everything out and reach equilibrium, the moment the last elementary particle stops moving it will be the death of our universe.
Ampere correctly assumed the flux lines as the prime mover of all fields, the solutions for the paradoxes of electromagnetism are ill-conceived only to agree with the current fashion so uni teachers can keep their fat pockets filling with cash, it's corruption everywhere.
Geon, thats an iteresting theory you have there....
-
A tangible solution may be a torus model similar to mobius coils for particles, an elliptical wavefront of speed c has two directions for the gravitational wave, on the one axis perpendicular to the toruses axis on the outside perimeter of the torus there's always a contraction of spacetime so the surrounding spacetime is expanded, this creates a gravitational gradient which gives rise to gravitational phenomena, the other direction is parallel to the toruses axis and gives rise to polarization patterns because of the superposition of quantum states creating B or E fields because it is intrinsic to the spin of particles, the polarization is the equivalent to flux lines. Now if gravitational waves exist then what are the properties of the spacetime medium in which they travel? The only true demand is that there has to be a baseline spacetime density, it doesn't have to be elastic or viscous but I haven't checked out the details yet.