Re: is the magnetic field really moving?

On 24 Aug, 01:53, "Don Kelly" <d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ----------------------------"blackhead" <larryhar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
=
in message
>
> news:2540580d-ae9a-48b8-a909-6fdea3322c97@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 Aug, 00:03, Christoph Kobe <christ...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:38:09 -0500
> >> "Terry L Hewett Sr" <terrylhewet...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >> > "Christoph Kobe" <christ...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> >news:20080814212631.3f00a56a.christoph@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> > > I don't agree with you that there is a second field generated in
t=
he
> >> > > iron.
> >> > > Why should it be there?
>
> >> > The iron is not only conductive it is a ferrite. It will induce the
> >> > field
> >> > from the wire through conductive properties carried by the field.
Th=
is
> >> > is a
> >> > simple experiment wind a coil around a 1/2 inch bolt apply voltage.
=
see
> >> > if
> >> > you don't see a second field generated by the bolt. The same would
b=
e
> >> > true
> >> > if you wound the coil inside of a iron pipe, however it is more
> >> > efficient to
> >> > have the iron core within the coil.
>
> >> Well, the comparision (winding a wire around bolt) is really bad,
beca=
use
> >> 1. The winding is not around a ferrit, it's only in a part of it.
That
> >> would
> >> be drilling a hole through the bolt, putting the coil through that
hol=
e
> >> and only
> >> around half of the bolt. The flux would be 'shortened' by the other
ha=
lf
> >> of the
> >> bolt, thus not generating a field outside the bolt.
> >> 2. In this case there is only one winding and one winding is by far
no=
t
> >> enough to cancel the other magnetic field (unless you put more than
10=
000
> >> A through it ...).
> >> 4. We're only talking about voltage induction. No current yet. No
curr=
ent
> >> means, no additional
> >> magnetic field generated.
>
> >> Conclusion: Theory that there is a sencond opposing field generated
is
> >> wrong.
>
> > When a field is applied to iron, it has the effect of aligning the
> > domains - tiny bar magnets - within it so that they collectively add
> > to the applied field. The effect is to intensify the total magnetic
> > field within the iron, but decrease it external to the iron.
>
> > Get a U magnet and add small bar magnets between the ends. The fields
> > of the U magnet and that of the bar magnets add to give little
> > external field but an intense field within the bar magnets.
>
> I find your statement misleading. The field configuration will change if
=
a
> ferromagnetic material is inserted. This means that in some areas the
fie=
ld
> is decreased but in others, not necessarily in the iron alone, it will
be
> greatly increased.

Yes, but I don't think you've added anything new to what I said.

>In your example the field external to the iron will be
> decreased but that is because the overall field configuration is
differen=
t -
> as you have a number of "good conductors" in parallel with the original
> "poor conductor" of the air gap. The comparison is apples to oranges
beca=
use
> the two situations are quite different.

I don't see how your explanation is an improvement on what I said. In
fact, it seems to muddy the waters since you're introducing the idea
of the "magnetic circuit" and "good conductors" of flux etc. You're
complicating things when there is no need to. An applied field aligns
the random orientation of the magnetic domains so that they
collectively give a net magnetic field which adds/subtracts to that of
the applied field, assuming they don't effect the applied field which
is generally true.

> In a motor, adding iron to the magnetic circuit greatly reduces the air
g=
ap
> and associated mmf so that the "gap" flux is much higher than would be
> possible without the iron. Certainly "stray fields" will be reduced-that
=
is
> part of the purpose. =A0 Again, it is comparing apples to oranges
because=
 the
> overall medium and its characteristics have changed.

There's no need, again, to complicate things. Again, the net magnetic
field will be the superposition of the appplied and the magnetic
response of the iron.


> Don Kelly d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> remove the X to answer
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -