Motors

Some info here:

in article 4_zee.8229$db7.4552@trnddc01, Brian White at snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote on 5/5/05 6:44 PM:

Use a library or an encyclopedia!

Bill

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com

I'm wondering how

into rotational

easy - they use

rotational motion

you turn

or a circular saw.

or click here

Brian White at snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com

Power comes into the tool and this causes the motor to turn, unless you need the drill for a project that absoulely has to be done the next morning,and it is late and there is no other drill available. Then the drill motor merely turns electricity into heat.

I have an entry-level college physics book that explains motor therory well, but surely there is something on the net. Try google.

When you have an electric current perpendicular to a a magnetic field , there is a force produced between the two (which is perpendicular to both). In a motor, the field is on one part (say the stationary part as is the case for for many small motors) and the current is in the winding on the other (rotating) part. Then torque (rotational force) is produced causing motion and electrical energy is converted to mechanical energy. This is very oversimplified but it is the same basic principle that you see in your car starter, alternator, household motors and industrial motors and generators. Actually chain saws and weedwhackers are more complicated machines than electric motors.

There is a lot of basic information in a simple format on line or in pretty well all encyclopedias and libraries as mentioned by others who have answered.

in article ZZVee.1260255$6l.255772@pd7tw2no, Don Kelly at snipped-for-privacy@peeshaw.ca wrote on 5/6/05 7:46 PM:

I think that the next time asks such a question, my reply will be

F = I x B

and hope I have the sign correct. :=)

Bill

question - we may both have problems chasing down the question of "why?"

No force operates in a vacuum... for there to be an equal and opposite reaction, the essence of force... there must be a background field in which these features live... can push against, vibrate within etc. If there is no background field then there is no containment and energy dissipates in all directions endlessly even prior to its own manifestation.. such as a weightless arm attached to nothing trying to throw a tomato at a glorious politician. Nothing will happen..

..there is nothing against which to create an equal and opposite reaction... the tomato will simply hang in space.

IF that is the case then the opposite to an electrically induced magnetic field will be induced,,necessarily in its polar opposite in all respects, a conductive mass. the mass must then dissipate that energy ... in the form of heat or of static lines of magnetic force...or in some other fashion...rotation for instance if the electrically induced field can be arranged to impinge on the iron mass in such a way as to induce torque.,,but for any of that to manifest there must be a background field in which these operate, and can provide leverage on each other.

And indeed we do see this reciprocity all through physics.. for instance the recently proven time and space warp around planets... something is being warped...and that something is the background field that our manifestation is written within...

We are currently attempting to understand these issues from a false notion that these forces are created and exist in a perfect vacuum...

that has limited our discovery. we have failed to define 'vacuum' and conclude that one can have a perfect vacuum if there are no tiny rocks in the space...'its a vacuum'... well yes. Its a vacuum relative to rocks. but it is about as far from a perfect vacuum of all-that-is as can be imagined.

To parse this it helps to ask yourself how does any wave motion travel? Waves in the ocean for instance...sound waves etc...these travel as compressions and decompressions in air and pressure gradients in water as it rises and falls in wave motion..

So what of electro magnetic *waves... this wave motion travels in a true vacuum? No ... there is a background field. We have simply not detected... even as are off in search of the missing mass in the universe...sort of like a fish searching for wet... the fish would not even have the notion of wet.. wet is an issue only where there is dry...and there is no dry in the ocean...its all wet you see.

Forces of any type do not exist in a perfect vacuum...they cannot. and they do not.. an examination of the Hubbell photos will demonstrate very familiar patterns as seen with smoke within a field of gas...yet there is no particular field of gas in the outer space.. there is a field of some other construction... particles act entirely differently in an air vacuum...

with electro magnetic energy we are looking at nothing more than finer 'particles' operating in an even finer background field.

To see the manifestation of this background field look at picture of the horse head nebula... that dust cloud formation, millions of light years across...is not totally diffuse... it has hard edges.. that is its particles interface with a more or less equally dense, but alien to its own structure background field.

When we define that field... physics will have taken another giant step forward,

this is the life work of thousands of scientists..with a few unable to fathom such a thing in opposition..

We have simply not detected it yet...why? Because our instruments operate and are dependent on the background field to exist imo and operate.. the self does not detect the self.. differentiation is the essence of detection. From inside the background field there is no detection possible of the background field.

..except by extrapolation from an exterior view point.. that is a point of view beyond the limits of the material construct...and noticing the differences in impedance through this field...for instance thought is seen to traverse this field with no discernable resistance or time lag across thousands of miles... I had that discussion ever so briefly with Dr Wolfgang Stroebel (from east Germany during the time of the cold war no less when he was contracted to develop his neutrino mass experiment at LLNRL in the US... described later by Col Bearden who headed that and much other leading edge research.in his book published a few years after his retirement and vetted appropriately.)

So do we understand the actual mechanics of how an electric motor works? I suggest that one understand how a jet engine works in a background field of air... then look with that in mind, extrapolating for the background field that supports electro mechanical drives..and the milky way galaxy on which a distant branch our solar system lives as an invisible spec to all but the nearest of our neighbors.

This massive entitiy demonstrates very obvious drag through a pervasive background field. the mass of that field is calculable and is currently being calculated... and shown at great suprize very recently as the force by which the universe is *accelerating its expansion.

For that acceleration to be taking place... this field must be repulsive to its condensates or impurities... celestial bodies. The mechanics of that repulsion define the nature of and structure of the field.

It is observably rigid to intent, observably tansparent to manifestations .... and unfathomable to its offspring.

A human being operates on this interface. by pushing the limits on manifestation, as seen in life and death situations and some kinds of motor racing that are on the absolute edge... the being defaults from the manifestation to pure intent.

Phil Scott

This is what I was looking for (see below). So, to produce torque without an internal combustion engine, you use the same principle as an alternator or even a steam turbine generator. I was curious why internal combustion engines are so complicated with all of that linear force needing to be converted to torque. I had become curious about the rotary wankel engine and how it makes the process much simpler. Then I thought, why not use the same principle alternators use. Alas, it is already used. Simply put, it does not produce enough torque to be useable efficiently in cars where tremendous torque is needed. For instance, electric powered chainsaws are much weaker than ones that are gasoline powered with a cylinder. Now I understand. I wonder if they will ever come up with a better way to make engines where you don't need to convert linear forces like in an internal combustion engine into torque. The rotary wankel engine was a step in the right direction I believe. Any thoughts? Brian

----------- The internal combustion engine has a better power to weight ratio than most electric motors and also elctric chainsaws are limited by their power supply. However, do not think that electric motors are inherently "weaker" than IC engines as it simply is not true. Note that electric motors of the order of

to be gerrmane to electric motors and more of a proposed return to an aether concept. Then I saw a reference to Beardon and all becomes clear - not lucid -just where you are coming from. By the way, the background field for an electric motor is generally the magnetic field that is built into the design of the machine. Nothing to do with some elusive all pervading unknown quantity permeating space.

Don't know what you mean by a "weightless" arm, but if you have a disembodied arm trying to throw a tomato, the tomato _will_ be thrown, but the arm will also travel in the opposite direction. Conservation of momentum, equal and opposite reactions, etc. It is also how rockets work in space, (they 'throw' burning fuel) even without no air to push against. An electric motor will also work in space, but its frame will rotate in the opposite direction.

This is an argument for the 'ether'. A long time ago everyone thought 'ether' pervaded all space and was necessary for light or whatever to propogate, as apparently you do. They did experiments to determine which way the ether flowed relative to the earth and surprise! They found there is no ether! A vacuum really does contain nothing.

Agreeing with your point and expanding on it:

The rocket fuel does have something to push against - the rocket. As the fuel expands. it pushes against all sides of whatever contains it and escapes at the vent. For the sake of discussion, say the vent is pointing "south" and the nose of the rocket is pointing "north" (north and south used only to indicate exactly opposite). The fuel expands and moves "south". The same force that pushes the fuel "south" also pushes the rocket "north".

I suspect "weightless" was intended to mean "massless". Maybe ??. And maybe (I'm speculating) he has the following in mind: In theory, if there could be such thing as a massless arm, then it wouldn't throw the tomato. F=MA ???

With a "real" weightless arm, if it can move it will throw the tomato. As an example, consider a mechanical arm shaped like a human arm, floating in space. In the palm of the hand is a tomato. On the back of the hand is our rocket from the previous example. The rocket pushes the hand, and the hand throws the tomato.

Ed