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

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter goran d
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dynamo
AI Thread 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 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top