major said:
The magnetic field takes some energy initially and stores it but requires no further energy to maintain itself and exhibit the interacting force with the magnets.
Hey, hey, hey, waddayaknow. PROGRESS. Small. Tiny. And you'll deny it. Repeatedly, at length. Starting about 2 days from now (it always seems to take about two days for you to catch up with everyone else) and continuing, ... for the rest of your life probably. You're not the sort to let sleeping dogs lie.
And the progress? Well, previously, you vehemently insisted that
ALL THE ENERGY WAS CONVERTED TO HEAT. Now, ten pages on you admit to:
The magnetic field takes some energy initially
.
It's a breakthrough; your eureka "moment" (well, eureka two weeks really, but never mind), and then ... dun, dun, dun. You immediately throw it all away.
If, all we need to do to create the
interacting force with the magnets
(in a rotational motor, it called 'torque'), is inject a little energy to get the coils producing a field and then
stores it but requires no further energy to maintain itself
, then we could just turn of the power and the torque would continue to exist. (Now, even you can surely see that it total crap.)
In order for the magnetic field to be produced, the current has to flow through the wire. And in order for the current to flow (outside of cryogenicly cooled superconductors), it has to overcome the resistance of that wire, and that produces heat. stationary or moving. And right there, is the entire process of converting electrical energy to mechanical energy. Nothing else is required. Just the flow of electrons through a wire in the presence of a magnetic field. It is described in its entirety by Lorenz.
Of course, you'll deny it. You'll revert to your reading, and regurgitate again (as you've done throughout this thread, ad nauseum) some guff derived from the misunderstanding of something you read somewhere that .... No need for me to repeat it cos you've done so a zillion times and no doubt will again.
But here's the thing. History is replete with books full of such misunderstandings. It used to be thought that Barnacle Geese spent the winter attached to rocks in the form of Goosehead Barnacles. Luigi Galvani (of galvanometer fame) thought that 'animal electricity' was different to ordinary electricity; it took Alessandro Volta (of voltage fame) to set him straight. Both great men, but even they can have misunderstandings.
And you're not a great man. Indeed, you are what Feynman called 'the worst type of technician'; a rote learnt scientist. One who's only method of debate is '"proof" by reference'. A 'scientist' who has no understanding of what you regurgitate; no intuition or feel for the subject they bang on about; just a potted collection of facts and formulae you regurgitate ad nauseum. And if one of those 'facts' is dubious, weak and baseless -- like the bland aphorism that "back-EMF (induced or generated voltage as you call it) is fundamental to energy conversion" -- you are simply ill-equipped to discern it. Even when it is pointed out to you.
And when presented with, even simple scenarios that weren't worked examples in your texts, you 're lost. And when you get lost, out of your depth, you revert to type and start repeating yourself over and over. You try to bludgeon your opponents to death with 'proof by reference'. And in your case, the references are usually yourself. I've never encountered anyone who quoted himself so much.
And I've never encountered anyone else who so obviously vehemently believed he could prove his argument by quoting himself saying the thing he wanted to prove.
All in all, arguing with you is a complete waste of time; you simply don't have the mental capacity and acuity -- sod it -- you don't have the intelligence to construct an argument that stands up to scrutiny; to the scientific process. Your idea of proof is to make up a set of numbers -- that bear no relationship to any reality -- that show what you want them to show; and claim they prove what you claim they show. A tortuous illogicality.
Basically, you're a waste of an expensive education. A rote learnt quoting machine with no intuition, no feel for the subject, and no ability to question what you read in a book.
So, dear boy. Have at it. See if quoting yourself some more, re-regurgitating the same meaningless aphorisms a few more dozen times will change anything.
