Back EMF in a Motor - Does It Alternate?

AI Thread Summary
In a DC circuit with a rotating coil in a magnetic field, the induced back emf can alternate, behaving similarly to an alternating emf. The back emf is negative when the torque supports rotation, reducing current, and positive when it opposes rotation, increasing current. The discussion highlights the need for lead switching in the coil to maintain rotation and achieve a consistent output, akin to the operation of DC generators. It also suggests that the waveform of the back emf may not be a perfect sine wave due to these current changes. Understanding these principles is crucial for effective electric motor design.
Gear300
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
9
Say you had a circuit with a battery and a loop of wire somewhere in the middle of the circuit. The loop of wire is positioned so that it is free to rotate in a uniform magnetic field, and since a current is running through it, a torque will be supplied by the magnetic force allowing it to rotate. The rotation of the coil will cause a changing magnetic flux because the angle constantly changes. The circuit to begin with was a DC circuit, but if an expression were to be derived for the emf induced in the coil, it would be an alternating emf. Does the back emf alternate back and forth completely or does it only vary sinousidally every half a period much like the emf provided in DC generators?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It should alternate + and - similar to a sine wave.

When the torque on the coil is in the direction it is rotating, the back-emf is negative as in a DC motor, and current is reduced.
When the torque opposes the direction of rotation (i.e. it is being decelerated), the emf is positive, and current is increased.

Hope that helps.

p.s. I'm not sure if or how the changes in current would make the oscillations deviate from a true sine wave (it's getting late and it's been a while since I thought about this stuff).
 
I see...I was thinking that it was a sine wave, but one that didn't alternate so that it would increase the current (meaning that half the period would be cut off per cycle...sort of like the absolute value of the sine function instead).
 
Er, it will move but it will not rotate, it will position itself so that the N field of the coil points to the S pole of your magnet or vice versa, and stay like that till you switch current off. To get rotation you have now to change the direction of one of the magnetic fields somehow. That is the whole engineering question for how to make electric motors I think.
 
To get the "absolute value" effect, as is done with DC generators and motors, one needs to flip the leads of the rotating coil w.r.t. the output leads, before the emf goes to a negative value.

I found a good animation showing the effect. I can't post the url until after I've made 15 posts here, but if you Google "Simple direct current (DC) generators contain an armature" (including the quotes) the first link will show what I mean. Notice how the contacts get switched every half-cycle in the figure.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top