I Can a Core-less Dynamo Really Achieve Double Efficiency?

  • Thread starter Thread starter goran d
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dynamo
Click For Summary
A core-less dynamo is proposed to achieve a maximum efficiency of 2, based on the argument that JxB emf does no work while E.J does work, suggesting that output could be double the mechanical energy input. However, this claim is challenged by pointing out that the left side of the equation is a vector and the right side is a scalar, indicating a fundamental flaw in the argument. Additionally, the inward Poynting vector implies energy consumption rather than generation, contradicting the notion of over-unity efficiency. Discussions of such pseudoscience, including perpetual motion and free energy, are not permitted in the forum. The consensus is that claims of efficiency exceeding 1 are unfounded and violate forum rules.
goran d
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
It seems that a core-less dynamo would have a maximum efficiency of 2.
The argument is as follows:
JxB emf= E.J emf
JxB does no work
E.J does work
Thus output is twice the mechanical energy spent
Inward Poynting vector?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
goran d said:
The argument is as follows:
JxB emf= E.J emf
The left hand side is a vector. The right hand side is a scalar. That should be a good hint that the argument is wrong. (In case non conservation of energy weren’t enough of a hint)
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, berkeman and russ_watters
goran d said:
Inward Poynting vector?
If you want to convert rotor energy to EM energy, you will need Poynting to flow outwards. Inward suggests it is actually a motor or resistor that consumes electrical energy.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
goran d said:
It seems that a core-less dynamo would have a maximum efficiency of 2.
The argument is as follows:
JxB emf= E.J emf
JxB does no work
E.J does work
Thus output is twice the mechanical energy spent
Inward Poynting vector?

We do not allow the discussion of nonsense like over-unity processes (efficiency = 2). Per the PF rules:

micromass said:
Pseudoscience, such as (but not limited to):
Perpetual motion and "free energy" discussions (see our Insights Article here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
http://www.skepdic.com/freeenergy.html
http://www.skepdic.com/perpetual.html

You are on a 10-day vacation from the PF now. Not that it seems to matter -- you seem to only stop by PF every year or two to post nonsense. If you do it again, you will be permanently banned. Have a nice day.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and dlgoff
Thread 'The rocket equation, one more time'
I already posted a similar thread a while ago, but this time I want to focus exclusively on one single point that is still not clear to me. I just came across this problem again in Modern Classical Mechanics by Helliwell and Sahakian. Their setup is exactly identical to the one that Taylor uses in Classical Mechanics: a rocket has mass m and velocity v at time t. At time ##t+\Delta t## it has (according to the textbooks) velocity ##v + \Delta v## and mass ##m+\Delta m##. Why not ##m -...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
64
Views
7K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K