Can a magnetic fields/forces do work on a current carrying wire?

[harrylin]

[..] Did I help or confuse matters more?
Claude

Without scrutinizing your arguments in detail, I think that you nicely summarized it.

 

[Miyz]

After one turn the potential energy is identical - no change over one cycle. So, as Darwin already pointed out in post#30, it reduces to a disagreement about the meaning of words. In physics language the rope behind the tractor and the permanent magnet in the motor do no work - that has nothing to do with equations, just with definitions.

That is, the definition of work and many explanations of how to deal with it "is irrelevant to this topic"... Well then, good luck!

Um, Darwin123 gave a very good statement about the forces involved in doing the work and will eventually transfer energy. Now in you're cause the tractor is the main input of force applied on the rope to lift,move,etc... When you brake the whole system up you'd find out the main "SOURCES" to transfer energy is the rope. Without the existence of any force in the system nothing is applied on the weight and no work will be done and no energy would be transferred.

In a motor what basically happens? A battery is connected to a loop supplying the input "magnetic field" when a magnet is present and oriented in a certain way it will apply a force on the loop it will rotate and torque will be created. Now who's the rope in this situation and the tractor? I think it pretty obvious isn't it?

Even in you're example the "rope" is the connection between to object to do work which is crucial, without the presents of a magnet/rope no work wold be done.

Yea and when I said its irrelevant not by definition but more into the forces acting upon object because its very simple and obvious. In a cause of motor where its all about the magnetic fields its more complex isn't it?

Oops, sorry, I missed the link. You are right, it does move fast. The energy transfer definition in the link is subtly different from the F.d definition I was using, so you are correct that we were using different definitions.

However, using that definition the lightandmatter link explicitly says that the rope does work on the plow: "When the tractor pulls the plow with a rope, the rope does negative work on the tractor and positive work on the plow." (emphasis added).

Also, the definition used there clearly applies to a rope: "Work is the amount of energy transferred into or out of a system, not counting energy transferred by heat conduction." The rope does transfer energy to the weight/plow/trailer. It doesn't produce any energy, but it transfers it from the tractor to the weight and not via heat conduction.

Makes more sense and more logical.

Ah right I missed that - thus that link actually corresponds to your definition, so it appears that yours is the more commonly used. And using that definition the reply to the title question is obviously yes: fields/forces that move a wire do work on that wire.

Woho! Now you see what I truly mean,

Thanks DaleSpam for clarifying things out!

Magnetic fields + forces are INDEED doing work in a motor, simple explanation of this as I said at the beginning of this post: When current flows thorough a wire it creates a magnetic field, and another magnetic field is present that is from the magnet, They attract,repel. Now what's doing all the work? Magnetic fields + forces.(Simple explanation to a complicated effect.)

+ There is energy within the magnetic field.

Interesting how things turned out.

 

[Miyz]

I agree with that, but likewise the E field which tethers the stationary lattice protons to the mobile electrons merely transmits the force on the electrons from the magnetic field. Likewise SN force is also like the rope in that it transfers force to the neutrons. Both E & SN forces are akin to the rope in the tractor example.

Remember that the force integrated over the distance is the work done. The mag force must be strong enough to match the E force, plus the SN force, as well as move the electrons. But the mag field gives up energy as it transfers energy to produce torque & speed. The power source at the motor terminals replenishes this energy.

Is the mag force doing "work"? Well, in the short term, YES, in the long term NO. The power source, battery, ac mains wall outlet, etc., is doing all of the long term work. The mag force does move the rotor, but it only acts directly on electrons, but indirectly on protons & neutrons. The E & SN forces are internal tethers, like the rope in the tractor example. They are indispensable as they transmit force to protons & neutrons. The mag force is ineffective on proton & neutron.

Is the mag force doing work? Again, it stores energy then transfers it. It needs help from E & SN forces as well. Mag force participates but can't do it alone, nor long term. The power source is ultimately what does the work, not B field, not E field, not SN force. Did I help or confuse matters more?

Claude

Well put Claude yet again.
True mag forces can't do anything by its own. However, the power source is supplying all that flow E & SN forces!
If the power source or let's say (Input force) is constant the mag force would constantly be doing work :)

 

[Dale]

A nice paper about this question is the following one. The classical part of it precisely answers the question discussed here on hand of a simple example:

http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.77.036609

Hmm, I found the classical part of the paper quite convincing. Especially the ring. Using the "transfers energy" definition of work, someone could say that the magnetic field does work because it transfers energy from rotational KE to translational KE, but that is quite a stretch since the system with the rotational KE is the same as the system with the translational KE.

 

[Miyz]

Hmm, I found the classical part of the paper quite convincing. Especially the ring. Using the "transfers energy" definition of work, someone could say that the magnetic field does work because it transfers energy from rotational KE to translational KE, but that is quite a stretch since the system with the rotational KE is the same as the system with the translational KE.

Now what's you're conclusion on magnetic fields/forces? They do work? Have energy stores within them?

Whats you're new conclusion after check out the links :) ?

For everyone who was/is involved in this topic what are you're FINAL conclusions? (I'd like to see where we are all now).

 

[Dale]

I am not ready to make a conclusion at this time. I am not sure that my superconductor example is wrong, but I am not sure it was right now either. I had not considered any change to the internal energy of the superconductor.

 

[Miyz]

I am not ready to make a conclusion at this time. I am not sure that my superconductor example is wrong, but I am not sure it was right now either. I had not considered any change to the internal energy of the superconductor.

Then I'll be waiting for that conclusion. Because so far I agree with you're example and you're inputs honestly because it makes a lot of sense.

 

[Miyz]

+ Would like to add.

When you all would say that its about energy, Break that down, its about the ability of doing work break that down, its a force or in our case "forces" within a distance.
Our power source : Battery, Grid, Etc... Supplies forces to interact with the magnetic force that will result in: Motion, torque, work, energy transfer etc...

Same thing with the tractor being our main "Source" of force supplying it to the rope and the weight would be moved. Work is done + energy is conserved.

 

[Miyz]

Anyone?
(conclusions about magnetic fields/force doing work + stored energy).

 

[vanhees71]

vanhees71. There's no argument about the power equation is there? Of course it is right.

If there's no argument about this really fundamental equation, then what the heck is this debate about? This formula clearly shows that only the electric field "does work". Of course you can rewrite the current density in terms of the magnetic field and the displacement current, using the Ampere-Maxwell Law, but that doesn't mean that the magnetic field does work on the charges, which are clearly represented by the current density in the simple equation P=\int \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \; \vec{E} \cdot \vec{j}.

 

[Miyz]

If there's no argument about this really fundamental equation, then what the heck is this debate about? This formula clearly shows that only the electric field "does work". Of course you can rewrite the current density in terms of the magnetic field and the displacement current, using the Ampere-Maxwell Law, but that doesn't mean that the magnetic field does work on the charges, which are clearly represented by the current density in the simple equation P=\int \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \; \vec{E} \cdot \vec{j}.

Um... Magnetic field's can't do work based on that law? How?

 

[vanhees71]

The formula simply says that's solely the electric components of the electromagnetc fields which do work on charges. How else do you interpret this equation?

 

[Miyz]

The formula simply says that's solely the electric components of the electromagnetc fields which do work on charges. How else do you interpret this equation?

Isn't there a difference between a charge,electric charge, and a current carrying loop...
Whats the name of this law? I'd like to study it.

 

[Miyz]

Please bring me something that opposes the idea that magnets magnetic field/force can't do work on a current carrying loop!

Not a single charge!

+ A current carrying loop is a dipole! It can't do work with another dipole in our case a permanent magnet's dipole.

 

[cabraham]

The formula simply says that's solely the electric components of the electromagnetc fields which do work on charges. How else do you interpret this equation?

In a vacuum I'd agree with you. If an e- (electron) has a velocity & a mag field is present, then a Lorentz force acts on the e- in a direction normal to its present velocity, & normal to B. Thus a mag field can change an e- momentum value, but not its kinetic energy value. Hence a mag field does no work on a charge. Fair enough?

Now we have a current loop, 2 of them in fact. Mag field 1, or B₁, exerts a force on the electrons in loop 2, normal to their velocity. In accordance with the above, B does not alter the e- energy value, only its momentum value, by changing the e- direction. But as these e- move in a new direction, the remaining lattice protons get yanked along due to E force tethering. But did the E actually do the work? The stationary lattice was moved acquiring non-zero KE (kinetic energy) when it started at zero KE.

Likewise, the neutrons got yanked along by strong nuclear force, which tethers the n0 (neutron) to the p+ (proton). A mag force in a direction normal to the loop deflects e- in a radial direction, resulting in p+ & n0 getting yanked radially. The force due to B accounts for all motion & work. But B cannot act on p+ as they are stationary, nor on n0 since the are charge-less. Did E do the work? E cannot act on n0 since they are charge-less. Did SNF do the work? SNF does not act on e-.

The work done by E appears to me a near zero. E exerts force no doubt, but when integrated with distance I compute zero. The E force between e- & p+ does move the p+, but the e-/p+ system energy is not changing. If an E force changed the distance between e- & p+, then E did work. Likewise for SN force.

I don't think we can say that "E did the work". If so, please draw E, & compute the distances over which E force acts. Explain your position, instead of just making bold proclamations. B is the prime mover, but would be powerless w/o E & SN forces.

When an electromagnet lifts a car a similar scenario takes place. The magnet applies force to the ferrous material in the car. But the tires, upholstery, etc., are non-ferrous. B does 0 work on these materials. But their weight plus the ferrous material weight is provided by B. B cannot lift tires, but applies enough force to the steel to lift the tires which are tethered to the steel by E & SN forces.

E & SN did no work, B did. But B cannot lift a pile of tires & upholstery. If I erred, please show me specifically. Don't waste our time with "E did the work, not B", w/o explaining the details. I await a detailed scientific reply. Best regards.

Claude

 

[chingel]

When talking about the simplified approach, the B field does not do work on any moving charged particle and the current carrying wire is just a bunch of moving charged particles and a permanent magnet is just a complicated system of moving electrons which can be modeled as an electromagnet. So the magnetic field cannot do any work on the electrons in the wire, it only changes the electrons paths. The electrons themselves do the work on the wire, using their kinetic energy. This means that the electrons get slowed down. The EM and nuclear and what not forces transfer the kinetic energy of the electrons to the wire.

Consider a bunch of electrons moving in the wire in the horizontal direction. A very strong magnetic field is applied briefly, all the electrons now move vertically. They move until they reach the end of the wire, which they cannot escape, EM forces hold them in the wire, in the process momentum is transferred and the wire starts moving. You can also consider the center of mass frame, electrons moving one way and the wire the other way and EM attraction brings them both to an halt, which leads to the usual interpretation that EM forces did the work of transferring kinetic energy and the energy source was whatever made the electrons move in the first place (battery etc).

Of course there are actually various quantum considerations to deal with with real electrons and other phenomena (how it works in a superconductor etc), which I won't pretend to understand, nor the link posted earlier. But I think it is still true that a magnetic field cannot do work on an isolated moving electron, which also has a lot of quantum weirdness (no exact position, jumps from here to there etc), however I cannot help you in trying to understand the more complicated scenarios that use quantum theory, and how relevant is the simplified approach in that light.

 

[cabraham]

When talking about the simplified approach, the B field does not do work on any moving charged particle and the current carrying wire is just a bunch of moving charged particles and a permanent magnet is just a complicated system of moving electrons which can be modeled as an electromagnet. So the magnetic field cannot do any work on the electrons in the wire, it only changes the electrons paths. The electrons themselves do the work on the wire, using their kinetic energy. This means that the electrons get slowed down. The EM and nuclear and what not forces transfer the kinetic energy of the electrons to the wire.

Consider a bunch of electrons moving in the wire in the horizontal direction. A very strong magnetic field is applied briefly, all the electrons now move vertically. They move until they reach the end of the wire, which they cannot escape, EM forces hold them in the wire, in the process momentum is transferred and the wire starts moving. You can also consider the center of mass frame, electrons moving one way and the wire the other way and EM attraction brings them both to an halt, which leads to the usual interpretation that EM forces did the work of transferring kinetic energy and the energy source was whatever made the electrons move in the first place (battery etc).

Of course there are actually various quantum considerations to deal with with real electrons and other phenomena (how it works in a superconductor etc), which I won't pretend to understand, nor the link posted earlier. But I think it is still true that a magnetic field cannot do work on an isolated moving electron, which also has a lot of quantum weirdness (no exact position, jumps from here to there etc), however I cannot help you in trying to understand the more complicated scenarios that use quantum theory, and how relevant is the simplified approach in that light.

Ref bold, sorry but a current loop is MORE THAN just a bunch of moving charges. It has a fixed lattice structure, protons & neutrons tethered by E & SN forces. It is B that does the work. B exerts a force yanking on the e-, but due to E & SN force tethering the lattice structure, the whole wire is moved. All of the force must come from B. Although E & SN transferred force, they do no work. Every Newton of force coupled by E & SN are matched by B. The B force moves the current loop through some distance. The integral of the B force times the incremental distance is the work done.

If B isn't doing the work, what is? It cannot be E. First of all, E provides force but no distance. The integral of E over the distance is zero. E is the force between p+ & e-. Moving one or both of these particles by E force resulting in their separation being changed is required for E to do work. Also, E does no work on neutrons. The theory that "E does all the work" holds water like a net.

Again, you cannot treat a loop with current as a mere collection of individual charges. There is a lattice held together by E & SN forces. Let me ask you about the electromagnet raising a car from the previous post of mine. What lifts the car? A 1000 kg car is raised 1 meter resulting in work of 9,806 N-m. What did the work, B, E, or SN?

Only B makes sense. I know B cannot do work on free electrons, nor on stationary protons, nor on neutrons. But B can yank on a lattice as I've described above, over a distance resulting in work being done. We seem to have reached a point where one side has demonstrated their case in detail, & the other side is simply in denial while offering nothing but declarations w/o support.

E force cannot be what is doing the work. If it really is, then show me an illustration with the direction of the E vector, & the path of integration. Otherwise, you have nothing.

Claude

 

[Miyz]

In a vacuum I'd agree with you. If an e- (electron) has a velocity & a mag field is present, then a Lorentz force acts on the e- in a direction normal to its present velocity, & normal to B. Thus a mag field can change an e- momentum value, but not its kinetic energy value. Hence a mag field does no work on a charge. Fair enough?

Now we have a current loop, 2 of them in fact. Mag field 1, or B₁, exerts a force on the electrons in loop 2, normal to their velocity. In accordance with the above, B does not alter the e- energy value, only its momentum value, by changing the e- direction. But as these e- move in a new direction, the remaining lattice protons get yanked along due to E force tethering. But did the E actually do the work? The stationary lattice was moved acquiring non-zero KE (kinetic energy) when it started at zero KE.

Likewise, the neutrons got yanked along by strong nuclear force, which tethers the n0 (neutron) to the p+ (proton). A mag force in a direction normal to the loop deflects e- in a radial direction, resulting in p+ & n0 getting yanked radially. The force due to B accounts for all motion & work. But B cannot act on p+ as they are stationary, nor on n0 since the are charge-less. Did E do the work? E cannot act on n0 since they are charge-less. Did SNF do the work? SNF does not act on e-.

The work done by E appears to me a near zero. E exerts force no doubt, but when integrated with distance I compute zero. The E force between e- & p+ does move the p+, but the e-/p+ system energy is not changing. If an E force changed the distance between e- & p+, then E did work. Likewise for SN force.

I don't think we can say that "E did the work". If so, please draw E, & compute the distances over which E force acts. Explain your position, instead of just making bold proclamations. B is the prime mover, but would be powerless w/o E & SN forces.

When an electromagnet lifts a car a similar scenario takes place. The magnet applies force to the ferrous material in the car. But the tires, upholstery, etc., are non-ferrous. B does 0 work on these materials. But their weight plus the ferrous material weight is provided by B. B cannot lift tires, but applies enough force to the steel to lift the tires which are tethered to the steel by E & SN forces.

E & SN did no work, B did. But B cannot lift a pile of tires & upholstery. If I erred, please show me specifically. Don't waste our time with "E did the work, not B", w/o explaining the details. I await a detailed scientific reply. Best regards.

Claude

Ref bold, sorry but a current loop is MORE THAN just a bunch of moving charges. It has a fixed lattice structure, protons & neutrons tethered by E & SN forces. It is B that does the work. B exerts a force yanking on the e-, but due to E & SN force tethering the lattice structure, the whole wire is moved. All of the force must come from B. Although E & SN transferred force, they do no work. Every Newton of force coupled by E & SN are matched by B. The B force moves the current loop through some distance. The integral of the B force times the incremental distance is the work done.

If B isn't doing the work, what is? It cannot be E. First of all, E provides force but no distance. The integral of E over the distance is zero. E is the force between p+ & e-. Moving one or both of these particles by E force resulting in their separation being changed is required for E to do work. Also, E does no work on neutrons. The theory that "E does all the work" holds water like a net.

Again, you cannot treat a loop with current as a mere collection of individual charges. There is a lattice held together by E & SN forces. Let me ask you about the electromagnet raising a car from the previous post of mine. What lifts the car? A 1000 kg car is raised 1 meter resulting in work of 9,806 N-m. What did the work, B, E, or SN?

Only B makes sense. I know B cannot do work on free electrons, nor on stationary protons, nor on neutrons. But B can yank on a lattice as I've described above, over a distance resulting in work being done. We seem to have reached a point where one side has demonstrated their case in detail, & the other side is simply in denial while offering nothing but declarations w/o support.

E force cannot be what is doing the work. If it really is, then show me an illustration with the direction of the E vector, & the path of integration. Otherwise, you have nothing.

Claude

BRAVO! :!) BRAAAVO!

The best answer so far the SHUTS every thing down! I totally agree again and again with Claude! Well said there sir!

Common sense everyone: Bring a loop connect it to a battery = nothing, Bring a magnet = MOTION!

Also! magnetic force on the wire = IL x B!
Magnets do work on this system and its all because of the INPUT POWER(battery etc...)
Again if you do say that magnets do no work please bring something NEW to the table! To support you're claim!

Thanks again everyone for you're efforts! Good discussion!

 

[vanhees71]

I can only repeat that Maxwell's equations hold in a very large range of applicability. QED effects are negligible in everyday applications, and Maxwell's equations clearly say that the power (work per time) done on charge distributions by the electromagnetic field is given by
P=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \; \vec{E}(t,\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{j}(t,\vec{x}).
Note that the current also contains the effects of magnetization through the corresponding part \vec{j}_{\text{mag}}=\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{M}.

I do not need to copy the already cited very well written paper, where it has been demonstrated on simple examples that magnetic fields do no work as predicted by Maxwell electromagnetics. It is also demonstrated that this picture also applies to the pure quantum phenomenon spin and the corresponding magnetic moment within semiclassical Dirac theory (semiclassical here means that the electron is treated as a quantum particle and the em. field as classical, an approximation valid for the nonrelativistic realm of the electron's motion, i.e., in atomic, molecular and solid-state physics for not too large charge numbers of the involved atomic nuclei). I take the freedom to cite this paper again, including the abstract, which already explains it very clearly:

PHYSICAL REVIEW E 77, 036609 (2008)
Dipole in a magnetic field, work, and quantum spin
Robert J. Deissler*

Physics Department, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, USA
͑Received 28 February 2007; published 21 March 2008

The behavior of an atom in a nonuniform magnetic field is analyzed, as well as the motion of a classical magnetic dipole ͑a spinning charged ball and a rotating charged ring. For the atom it is shown that, while the magnetic field does no work on the electron-orbital contribution to the magnetic moment ͑the source of translational kinetic energy being the internal energy of the atom, whether or not it does work on the electron-spin contribution to the magnetic moment depends on whether the electron has an intrinsic rotational kinetic energy associated with its spin. A rotational kinetic energy for the electron is shown to be consistent with the Dirac equation. If the electron does have a rotational kinetic energy, the acceleration of a silver atom in a Stern-Gerlach experiment or the emission of a photon from an electron spin flip can be explained without requiring the magnetic field to do work. For a constant magnetic field gradient along the z axis, it is found that the classical objects oscillate in simple harmonic motion along the z axis, the total kinetic energy—translational plus rotational—being a constant of the motion. For the charged ball, the change in rotational kinetic energy is associated only with a change in the precession frequency, the rotation rate about the figure axis remaining constant.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.77.036609

 

[Dale]

I do not need to copy the already cited very well written paper, where it has been demonstrated on simple examples that magnetic fields do no work as predicted by Maxwell electromagnetics.

Thanks for posting that paper. I have gone over it quite a bit and found it very persuasive. Here is my current thought process:

1) Let's use the definition of work as energy transferred to or from a system by any mechanism other than heat.
2) Only external forces can do work on a system since internal forces cannot transfer energy in or out of the system.
3) A system's KE may change without work being done on the system, provided there is some compensatory change in some other form of energy for the system. (this is what I neglected in my example)
4) If the paper represents some specific examples of a general principle, then in all situations where the magnetic force is the only external force, any change in KE must be accompanied by a corresponding change in some other internal form of energy.

So, in my example, an external magnetic field can accelerate (increase KE) a superconducting loop. This must be accompanied by a decrease in internal energy. The only available energy is the energy density of the magnetic field, which depends only on the current. Therefore, the current in the loop must decrease as the loop accelerates. Although I didn't calculate it explicitly, this makes sense to me.

A motor is easy to explain since the magnetic field is not the only source of energy transfer.

However, the one thing that makes me hesitate to adopt this principle wholeheartedly is that it is not always clear what internal energy is being used. For example, consider a permanent magnet being accelerated in an external magnetic field. What is the internal energy that is being used in the permanent magnet? Any ideas?

 

[cabraham]

I can only repeat that Maxwell's equations hold in a very large range of applicability. QED effects are negligible in everyday applications, and Maxwell's equations clearly say that the power (work per time) done on charge distributions by the electromagnetic field is given by
P=\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \; \vec{E}(t,\vec{x}) \cdot \vec{j}(t,\vec{x}).
Note that the current also contains the effects of magnetization through the corresponding part \vec{j}_{\text{mag}}=\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{M}.

I do not need to copy the already cited very well written paper, where it has been demonstrated on simple examples that magnetic fields do no work as predicted by Maxwell electromagnetics. It is also demonstrated that this picture also applies to the pure quantum phenomenon spin and the corresponding magnetic moment within semiclassical Dirac theory (semiclassical here means that the electron is treated as a quantum particle and the em. field as classical, an approximation valid for the nonrelativistic realm of the electron's motion, i.e., in atomic, molecular and solid-state physics for not too large charge numbers of the involved atomic nuclei). I take the freedom to cite this paper again, including the abstract, which already explains it very clearly:

PHYSICAL REVIEW E 77, 036609 (2008)
Dipole in a magnetic field, work, and quantum spin
Robert J. Deissler*

Physics Department, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, USA
͑Received 28 February 2007; published 21 March 2008

The behavior of an atom in a nonuniform magnetic field is analyzed, as well as the motion of a classical magnetic dipole ͑a spinning charged ball and a rotating charged ring. For the atom it is shown that, while the magnetic field does no work on the electron-orbital contribution to the magnetic moment ͑the source of translational kinetic energy being the internal energy of the atom, whether or not it does work on the electron-spin contribution to the magnetic moment depends on whether the electron has an intrinsic rotational kinetic energy associated with its spin. A rotational kinetic energy for the electron is shown to be consistent with the Dirac equation. If the electron does have a rotational kinetic energy, the acceleration of a silver atom in a Stern-Gerlach experiment or the emission of a photon from an electron spin flip can be explained without requiring the magnetic field to do work. For a constant magnetic field gradient along the z axis, it is found that the classical objects oscillate in simple harmonic motion along the z axis, the total kinetic energy—translational plus rotational—being a constant of the motion. For the charged ball, the change in rotational kinetic energy is associated only with a change in the precession frequency, the rotation rate about the figure axis remaining constant.

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.77.036609

The key is the dot product inside the integral, i.e. E⃗ (t,x⃗ )⋅j⃗ (t,x⃗)

Work done on charges according to this dot product is that of the E field along the direction of charge motion. We know that J = sigma*E, so that J & E are generally in the same direction. J dot with E is simply sigma*E². But this work being done on the charges is that of conduction current. The current in the loop consists of charges acted upon by E force so that the current density J is along the direction of E force per Lorentz law.

We already knew that. Again, let us convey an example. An induction motor is a good case to examine. The stator is connected to an ac power source, constant voltage, 60 Hz, etc. A rotating field is established. Current in the stator results in a mag field which revolves about the stator axis linking the rotor bars, for a squirrel cage type rotor. This rotating B field is accompanied by a rotating E field.

The current induced into the rotor consists of charges acted upon by Lorentz force. What force is doing the work of moving e- around the rotor loops resulting in a rotor generated revolving magnetic field? The only answer is the E force. The equation you gave is applicable here. The B force acts radially to the rotor bar electrons, E force moves them around the loop.

I doubt that anyone here would dispute that the rotor charges moving in the rotor loop are motivated by the revolving E force, not the B force. Hence the work done on the rotor charges moving in the rotor loop is done by E force. Pretty obvious.

But now that rotor current is realized, a revolving rotor magnetic field exists. This field interacts with the stator field & a torque is produced. As the rotor is moved towards the stator, energy is expended, & the mag field must be replenished. The ac power mains source does just that.

Your integral shown above relates the work done on charges to the dot product of E & J. Draw a diagram & it is plain as day that that is the work establishing rotor current, not the work done turning the rotor through an angle. E is in the direction of J, if E is normal to J, dot product goes to 0. The force on the rotor is not along the direction of J. It is normal to J.

The "E dot J" in your integral is not what you think it is. I will accept correction if I erred, but please give us references as to the orientation of B force, E force, J, etc. Thanks for your interest.

Claude

 

[vanhees71]

However, the one thing that makes me hesitate to adopt this principle wholeheartedly is that it is not always clear what internal energy is being used. For example, consider a permanent magnet being accelerated in an external magnetic field. What is the internal energy that is being used in the permanent magnet? Any ideas?

There's no general difference to the examples given in the paper! The magnetization of the permanent magnet is equivalent to a current density (using Heaviside-Lorentz units)
\vec{j}=c \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{M}.
Now, the permanent magnet is accelerated by the external magnetic field and according to Faraday's Law this induces an electric field which in turn leads to a current counteracting the change (Lenz's Rule). So again you have an change of intrinsic energy, and the work done is solely due to the induced electric field as it must be according to Poynting's Theorem!

 

[Dale]

Now, the permanent magnet is accelerated by the external magnetic field and according to Faraday's Law this induces an electric field which in turn leads to a current counteracting the change (Lenz's Rule).

So you think that the acceleration actually reduces the atomic currents? Is there any study that would support that. I mean, it makes sense for the big picture, but I don't see how the atomic level currents can be reduced without causing problems or at least changes in the atoms.

 

[vanhees71]

The induced current is a usual conduction current (caused by the conduction electron's motion in your metal permanent magnet). There's nothing exotic in this.

There's a lot of confusion on this issue, because many textbooks still use the pretty vague ideas of 19th century electromagnetism, where the inner structure of matter hasn't been as well understood as nowadays. The best introductory book about a more modern point of view on "macroscopic electrodynamics" is vol. II of the Feynman Lectures.

In fact it has been 19th century electromagnetism that paved the way to gain this understanding. A first highlight was the development of (special) relativity (which you can still count as 19th-century physics although it was finished only 1905 with Einstein's famous paper and the 1907 paper by Minkowski on covariant macroscopic electromagnetics). Another one the development of "classical electron theory" by Lorentz, Abraham, et al.

Finally the many contradictions and problems in the description of atoms lead to the main achievement of 20th century physics, namely quantum theory, which again was triggered by a purely electromagnetic problem, namely the problem of the spectrum of thermal radiation, which lead to the discovery of the "action quantum" \hbar by Max Planck in 1900 and the development of "old quantum" theory, again by Einstein with his "heuristic point of view" of electromagnetic radiation as light corpuscles (1905) and Bohr's and Sommerfeld's quantum model of the atom (again a work on electromagnetism, namely the motion of electrons around a nucleus, 1912-1916). Finally it lead to the development of modern quantum mechanics (Heisenberg, Born, Jordan, Pauli; Dirac; Schrödinger 1925-1927) and quantum electrodynamics and finally relativistic quantum field theory.

BTW: Physicswise we still live in the 20th century, because there's no new big paradigm change at the horizon yet. To the contrary: The preliminary discovery of hints for a (quite boring form of a minimal standard-model) Higgs again confirms the good old Standard Model of elementary particle physics :-(.

 

[Dale]

The induced current is a usual conduction current (caused by the conduction electron's motion in your metal permanent magnet). There's nothing exotic in this.

I am not sure that works. Suppose that the magnet is in a region of non-uniform magnetic field, and therefore accelerates, gaining KE. During the acceleration the magnet sees a changing B field and therefore there is an induced current, which acts to reduce the magnet's own field and therefore the magnet's internal energy. So far so good.

However, then suppose the magnet transitions to a region with a uniform field. At this point there is no more flux and therefore no more induced current. The magnet's internal field is no longer partially canceled so its internal energy returns to normal, but it still has KE.

I think the change in energy must be more than just a conduction current in this case. I am just not sure what else it could be.

 

[Born2bwire]

BRAVO! :!) BRAAAVO!

The best answer so far the SHUTS every thing down! I totally agree again and again with Claude! Well said there sir!

Common sense everyone: Bring a loop connect it to a battery = nothing, Bring a magnet = MOTION!

Also! magnetic force on the wire = IL x B!
Magnets do work on this system and its all because of the INPUT POWER(battery etc...)
Again if you do say that magnets do no work please bring something NEW to the table! To support you're claim!

Thanks again everyone for you're efforts! Good discussion!

I don't like to participate in this kind of discussion anymore but I would point out that this isn't a case of just a magnetic field. One thing to note here is that if we have two stationary wires, then in the lab frame where the wires are stationary we only have magnetic fields and currents. So in this snapshot it would appear that if the wires move away or together that the magnetic field is doing the work. However, we are looking at a static picture where we only have forces. The work is done over the dynamic picture of the wires actually moving. Once the wires begin to move, then we invariably have an acceleration of the charges that make up the currents and therefore have an electromagnetic field. So over the displacement of the wires over which the work is done, there exists electric and magnetic fields.

Another thing to consider is that in the situation where the wires are held stationary and we only have magnetic forces, from the rest frame of the charges in the wires there only exists an electric field. This is a common problem that is worked in texts like Griffiths. So from the electron's point of view, it only sees an electric field and not the magnetic field. In that case why not conclude that it is still the electric field that does all the work?

So the take away point that I would make is that with the wires, we need to keep in mind that it isn't an electric or magnetic field but an electromagnetic field. You can't conclude that the magnetic fields do the work from the face of it.

 

[cabraham]

I don't like to participate in this kind of discussion anymore but I would point out that this isn't a case of just a magnetic field. One thing to note here is that if we have two stationary wires, then in the lab frame where the wires are stationary we only have magnetic fields and currents. So in this snapshot it would appear that if the wires move away or together that the magnetic field is doing the work. However, we are looking at a static picture where we only have forces. The work is done over the dynamic picture of the wires actually moving. Once the wires begin to move, then we invariably have an acceleration of the charges that make up the currents and therefore have an electromagnetic field. So over the displacement of the wires over which the work is done, there exists electric and magnetic fields.

Another thing to consider is that in the situation where the wires are held stationary and we only have magnetic forces, from the rest frame of the charges in the wires there only exists an electric field. This is a common problem that is worked in texts like Griffiths. So from the electron's point of view, it only sees an electric field and not the magnetic field. In that case why not conclude that it is still the electric field that does all the work?

So the take away point that I would make is that with the wires, we need to keep in mind that it isn't an electric or magnetic field but an electromagnetic field. You can't conclude that the magnetic fields do the work from the face of it.

1st bold: No. Charges do indeed move when wires move, but net charge motion is 0. Acceleration of charges refers to charges acquiring KE. When an entire wire moves, the e- as well as stationary p+ move. I don't think this motion of equal & opposite charges can be treated the same as "conduction current".

2nd bold: "From the electron's point of view ---". We understand that when we view a motor spinning, we are viewing it from our static reference frame. We have already conceded that a free e- in conduction cannot have work done upon it by a B force, only an E force. You keep rehashing isolated particle physics & emphasize facts I've already conceded to. Nobody is disputing that. Also, the electron sees a static E field from the other loop's stationary lattice protons. But it sees a B field due to the other loop's electrons in motion. The electrons moving in the other loop undergo a Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, so that mere E force is not adequate to explain the force here.

3rd bold: "we need to keep in mind that it isn't an electric or magnetic field but an electromagnetic field". What on Earth is an "electromagnetic field"? Please enlighten me. There are magnetic quantities B & H, electric quantities E & D. Just how do you describe this "electromagnetic field"? Please enlighten me.

So far the naysayers have produced nothing. They talk a big game about Einstein, reference frames, etc., but cannot show me the fields working in a simple induction motor. Show me, please, how it is E force, & not B force that spins the rotor. So far all I get is people blowing smoke. Not 1 naysayer has addressed the motor operation question.

In a motor, we are not simply moving electrons from valence to conduction. We are exerting forces on wire loops resulting in torque & work being done. Making a loop spin involves more than conduction current. A B force acting on free electrons in a loop producing torque is more involved than simply inducing a loop current. The B force yanks on the e-, but the p+ & n0 get tethered as well. These e-, p+, & n0, all moving together in unison constitute zero current. Of course the current in the rotor loop is non-zero. There is more than 1 thing going on here.

Claude

 

[vanhees71]

However, then suppose the magnet transitions to a region with a uniform field. At this point there is no more flux and therefore no more induced current. The magnet's internal field is no longer partially canceled so its internal energy returns to normal, but it still has KE.

Ok, then there is no more magnetic force, and the magnet stays moving with a constant velocity (at least after some transition time, when all the dynamics of the currents and fields are damped). In the rest frame of the magnet, its magnetization and magnetic field is then that of the magnet at rest and its electric field is 0. What's left in the original reference frame is the static electric and magnetic field you get by a Lorentz boost with the appropriate velocity of this situation in the rest frame.

 

[Dale]

What's left in the original reference frame is the static electric and magnetic field you get by a Lorentz boost with the appropriate velocity of this situation in the rest frame.

Yes, that is correct too. So not only does some unknown (to me) energy store inside the permanent magnet need to compensate for the increased KE, it also needs to compensate for the increased energy of the permanent magnet's E and B fields.

 

[Miyz]

1st bold: No. Charges do indeed move when wires move, but net charge motion is 0. Acceleration of charges refers to charges acquiring KE. When an entire wire moves, the e- as well as stationary p+ move. I don't think this motion of equal & opposite charges can be treated the same as "conduction current".

2nd bold: "From the electron's point of view ---". We understand that when we view a motor spinning, we are viewing it from our static reference frame. We have already conceded that a free e- in conduction cannot have work done upon it by a B force, only an E force. You keep rehashing isolated particle physics & emphasize facts I've already conceded to. Nobody is disputing that. Also, the electron sees a static E field from the other loop's stationary lattice protons. But it sees a B field due to the other loop's electrons in motion. The electrons moving in the other loop undergo a Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction, so that mere E force is not adequate to explain the force here.

3rd bold: "we need to keep in mind that it isn't an electric or magnetic field but an electromagnetic field". What on Earth is an "electromagnetic field"? Please enlighten me. There are magnetic quantities B & H, electric quantities E & D. Just how do you describe this "electromagnetic field"? Please enlighten me.

So far the naysayers have produced nothing. They talk a big game about Einstein, reference frames, etc., but cannot show me the fields working in a simple induction motor. Show me, please, how it is E force, & not B force that spins the rotor. So far all I get is people blowing smoke. Not 1 naysayer has addressed the motor operation question.

In a motor, we are not simply moving electrons from valence to conduction. We are exerting forces on wire loops resulting in torque & work being done. Making a loop spin involves more than conduction current. A B force acting on free electrons in a loop producing torque is more involved than simply inducing a loop current. The B force yanks on the e-, but the p+ & n0 get tethered as well. These e-, p+, & n0, all moving together in unison constitute zero current. Of course the current in the rotor loop is non-zero. There is more than 1 thing going on here.

Claude

"Not 1 naysayer has addressed the motor operation question." THANK YOU!
I really like were you're going with this Claude + Agree with you're argument all the way!

Magnetic forces generated on the current loop/stator etc... Is all due to the magnetic field! THE MAGNETIC FIELD CAUSES THE ROTATION and WORK TO BE DONE!(Not it alone by has a primary key role in this whole process).

Many keep denying that fact WHY?! What give you that idea? Even when you deny it you'd refere to a single charge... Well read the thread topic... Were talking about the effect that's present within a motor! Why include that law that is irrelevant to it?

That law is based on "A" charge...

Please state you're opinion or idea based on the "motor effect". Not one the quantum scale of things where everything's different.

 

[Dale]

3rd bold: "we need to keep in mind that it isn't an electric or magnetic field but an electromagnetic field". What on Earth is an "electromagnetic field"? Please enlighten me. There are magnetic quantities B & H, electric quantities E & D. Just how do you describe this "electromagnetic field"? Please enlighten me.

The electromagnetic field is usually described using tensors. The Wikipedia page on the topic is actually quite good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariant_formulation_of_classical_electromagnetism

With this formulation the separation of the EM field tensor into an E field and a B field is seen as a simple artifact of the coordinate system chosen. Since the choice of coordinate system is arbitrary, so is the distinction between E and B.

Regarding naysayers, I haven't yet made up my mind. I came into the thread quite convinced that magnetic fields do work, but I am no longer so certain after having read the paper referenced above. Did you read it? If so, did you find any specific errors?

However, the reason that I used a superconducting loop in my example rather than a motor is the obvious weakness of the motor argument: specifically, the motor has a large amount of E field energy going into the system on the wires. I wanted a "cleaner" system where the only possible work was done by the B field, which is not the case with a motor.

 

[cabraham]

The electromagnetic field is usually described using tensors. The Wikipedia page on the topic is actually quite good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariant_formulation_of_classical_electromagnetism

With this formulation the separation of the EM field tensor into an E field and a B field is seen as a simple artifact of the coordinate system chosen. Since the choice of coordinate system is arbitrary, so is the distinction between E and B.

Regarding naysayers, I haven't yet made up my mind. I came into the thread quite convinced that magnetic fields do work, but I am no longer so certain after having read the paper referenced above. Did you read it? If so, did you find any specific errors?

However, the reason that I used a superconducting loop in my example rather than a motor is the obvious weakness of the motor argument: specifically, the motor has a large amount of E field energy going into the system on the wires. I wanted a "cleaner" system where the only possible work was done by the B field, which is not the case with a motor.

You avoided the question. If E & B has arbitrary distinction, how can you claim that E does work, B does not? Also, they are in different directions, & that is not arbitrary. Show me an illustration where E exerts force on the loop/rotor. Every machine text shows B/H doing the force on the rotor. E exists, it has to along with B/H, but its direction is not oriented so as to turn the rotor.

Now when it comes to moving e- through the loop, work is needed. As electrons collide with the lattice, losing energy & radiating photonic emission (heat which is I²R), they need to have work done on them to replenish said energy. This work is done by E, not by B. Thus the work done on the charges in the loop(s) maintaining the current, is done only by E, not by B force. Fair enough?

Claude

 

[Dale]

You avoided the question.

Yes, I still haven't made a conclusion, so I cannot answer. I was only pointing out what I feel is an obvious weakness of the motor example in deciding the answer to the question either way.

If E & B has arbitrary distinction, how can you claim that E does work, B does not?

Work and energy also depend on the arbitrary choice of coordinate system.

 

[cabraham]

Yes, I still haven't made a conclusion, so I cannot answer. I was only pointing out what I feel is an obvious weakness of the motor example in deciding the answer to the question either way.

Ok, that's fair enough. Please keep us posted when you have something to share.

Work and energy also depend on the arbitrary choice of coordinate system.

Fine. Please refer to the coordinate system of a stationary observer watching the motor spin. What force is doing the work? Please give illustration including direction of force vector. Thanks in advance.

Claude

 

[Dale]

Please refer to the coordinate system of a stationary observer watching the motor spin. What force is doing the work?

Not until I have gotten to the point that I can analyze a simpler system and make up my mind on the general question based on that analysis. Once I can analyze a simpler system where there is only B then I can attempt systems with E and B.

Btw, did you read the paper? What did you think?

 

[cabraham]

Not until I have gotten to the point that I can analyze a simpler system and make up my mind on the general question based on that analysis. Once I can analyze a simpler system where there is only B then I can attempt systems with E and B.

Btw, did you read the paper? What did you think?

Good paper, no denying that. But it does not deal with the interaction of 2 magnetic fields. It does state that under specific conditions, that mag force can do work. It does not deal with the forces of 2 current carrying loops.

The wiki link gives a good primer as to how special relativity relates to e/m field theory. Both references are very useful & well written. But we already have many textbooks written on motor operation. Do we really need to examine the OP question from the viewpoint of reference frame other than a stationary observer watching the motor spin? We seem to have gone off on a tangent.

This weekend I will create a sketch & post it. Based on Ampere's Law, Faraday's Law, the magnetic vector potential A, E field, B/H field, etc., the only logical conclusion is that to turn the rotor, a force must exert a torque on said rotor. Only B/H seems to have the correct direction to do that. E acts tangential to the loop. resulting in induced current as Lorentz force describes.

To get a torque you need a B force. But to have a B force you need 2 currents. Each current is established & maintained by E forces. But those E forces rely on B fields as well. The E field in the rotor maintains rotor current. But the rotor E is due to the stator B field. Stator B is due to stator I, which is related to stator E.

I think I'm on solid ground when I say that E, B, V, I, torque, & speed are very interactive. No single entity is responsible for motor action. But B produces the torque. But w/o E, I, V, etc., there wouldn't be any B. Likewise B only yanks on electrons, then the protons & neutrons are tethered via E & SN forces. B cannot do it alone.

That has been my position w/o wavering.

Claude

 

[Dale]

It does state that under specific conditions, that mag force can do work.

Sorry, I missed that, I must not have read as carefully as I had thought. Where was that?

Do we really need to examine the OP question from the viewpoint of reference frame other than a stationary observer watching the motor spin? We seem to have gone off on a tangent.

No, at least I probably won't do any such analysis unless it seems likely to simplify things. I was merely responding to your question about what was meant by the term "EM field", you seemed unaware of what was being referred to and that the distinction between E and B depends on the choice of reference frame. But I am not recommending a full-blown covariant analysis from multiple reference frames, etc. I am having a hard enough time thinking it through in a single frame.

 

[Miyz]

Sorry, I missed that, I must not have read as carefully as I had thought. Where was that?

No, at least I probably won't do any such analysis unless it seems likely to simplify things. I was merely responding to your question about what was meant by the term "EM field", you seemed unaware of what was being referred to and that the distinction between E and B depends on the choice of reference frame. But I am not recommending a full-blown covariant analysis from multiple reference frames, etc. I am having a hard enough time thinking it through in a single frame.

Really looking forward for you're conclusion

 

[Miyz]

+ Its amazing how this thread turned out to be huh? :)
Magnetic fields! Interesting phenomena!

 

[vanhees71]

I'm a bit puzzled how this can happen more then 112 years after Einstein's famous paper on "the electrodynamics of moving bodies" (my translation from German).

 

[Khashishi]

A sailboat is in a lake with the wind parallel to the sail. It doesn't accelerate. Now a person pulls the sail at an angle to the wind. This causes the sail to deflect the wind and the boat starts to move. In this case, the wind does work on the boat. The person requires force to move the sail, but he isn't doing any work to move the boat.

A wire in a magnetic field is like the boat. The electric current acts like the wind. But the electrons move parallel to the wire so there's no work on the wire. Applying the magnetic field deflects the electrons into the side of the wire, causing the wire to move. It is the motion of the electrons which does work on the wire, not the magnetic field. The electrons slow down when they ricochet off the side of the wire and push the wire. The magnetic field is exerting a force on the electrons, but not doing work.

 

[pgardn]

A sailboat is in a lake with the wind parallel to the sail. It doesn't accelerate. Now a person pulls the sail at an angle to the wind. This causes the sail to deflect the wind and the boat starts to move. In this case, the wind does work on the boat. The person requires force to move the sail, but he isn't doing any work to move the boat.

A wire in a magnetic field is like the boat. The electric current acts like the wind. But the electrons move parallel to the wire so there's no work on the wire. Applying the magnetic field deflects the electrons into the side of the wire, causing the wire to move. It is the motion of the electrons which does work on the wire, not the magnetic field. The electrons slow down when they ricochet off the side of the wire and push the wire. The magnetic field is exerting a force on the electrons, but not doing work.

What do the electrons ricochet off of?

What do they touch?

 

[Miyz]

A sailboat is in a lake with the wind parallel to the sail. It doesn't accelerate. Now a person pulls the sail at an angle to the wind. This causes the sail to deflect the wind and the boat starts to move. In this case, the wind does work on the boat. The person requires force to move the sail, but he isn't doing any work to move the boat.

A wire in a magnetic field is like the boat. The electric current acts like the wind. But the electrons move parallel to the wire so there's no work on the wire. Applying the magnetic field deflects the electrons into the side of the wire, causing the wire to move. It is the motion of the electrons which does work on the wire, not the magnetic field. The electrons slow down when they ricochet off the side of the wire and push the wire. The magnetic field is exerting a force on the electrons, but not doing work.

The B field and the electric current are both proportional to one another. If you'd think about it... When electric current creates a magnetic fields that will interact with other magnetic field of a magnet.

Magnetic forces does the work and the electric current to is doing work both forces would add up to do work in a sense as I said before they add um as total work done on an object. I don't really agree that one is doing work while the other is not.
They both are.

 

[Miyz]

+

Based on the motor effect: Electricity flow to the wire as a "force" then another "force" is acted upon it that result in ANOTHER FORCE.

Electricity & magnetism and related to on another and are each forces acted upon each other in that causes of a "loop" were electricity flows through it, magnetic force is applied and torque is generated as a consequence to the interaction of both forces together. If you'd like to understand let's break each step into forces? The flow of electrons within the wire is caused due to EMF, due to that force the charges will be in motion through the conductor. Due to that motion of charge a magnetic field is created throughout the whole loop. Once a magnet is introduced to the system. Its magnetic field will interact with the loop and would attract it or repel it in a sense electricity(force) flowing through that loop will be a temporary"based on the flow of charge" dipole. Thus there will be a magnetic force applied on the loop and motion + torque are created.

Now if a freely moving charge moved through a magnetic field as Claude said: "e- (electron) has a velocity & a mag field is present, then a Lorentz force acts on the e- in a direction normal to its present velocity, & normal to B. Thus a mag field can change an e- momentum value, but not its kinetic energy value. Hence a mag field does no work on a charge." That is true.

But in cause of the motor effect! Where both charges & magnetic field's are present in a different orientation work is done and the value of kinetic energy will change. Because the charges are moving throughout a conductor and due to their motion a magnetic field is created and the magnet's field would interact with it. That interaction would be a force! The e- to move and due to its strong nuclear force it moves the p+ and n0 again Claude perfectly clarified that:"Now we have a current loop, 2 of them in fact. Mag field 1, or B1, exerts a force on the electrons in loop 2, normal to their velocity. In accordance with the above, B does not alter the e- energy value, only its momentum value, by changing the e- direction. But as these e- move in a new direction, the remaining lattice protons get yanked along due to E force tethering. But did the E actually do the work? The stationary lattice was moved acquiring non-zero KE (kinetic energy) when it started at zero KE.

Likewise, the neutrons got yanked along by strong nuclear force, which tethers the n0 (neutron) to the p+ (proton). A mag force in a direction normal to the loop deflects e- in a radial direction, resulting in p+ & n0 getting yanked radially. The force due to B accounts for all motion & work. But B cannot act on p+ as they are stationary, nor on n0 since the are charge-less. Did E do the work? E cannot act on n0 since they are charge-less. Did SNF do the work? SNF does not act on e-.

The work done by E appears to me a near zero. E exerts force no doubt, but when integrated with distance I compute zero. The E force between e- & p+ does move the p+, but the e-/p+ system energy is not changing. If an E force changed the distance between e- & p+, then E did work. Likewise for SN force."

Still they say electrical force does the work? Not really... Magnetic field then? Not really... Strong nuclear forces? Nope. Then what?! The total net force of all three interacting with one another.

As I said this before and I will say it again.

Magnetic field's can do work under certain circumstances.ONLY in the presence of both Electrical forces + Nuclear forces can then magnetic fields do work.

Now again: Electricity & magnetsim are related forces. Interacting together would cause this effect.

As Me & Claude finally agree that Magnetic force/field DOES work in this system. There all proportional to each other without the presence of E forces + SN forces the mag field/force can't do anything.

Miyz,

(Please give me you're opinion or you're contradiction to this idea because so far nothing is against it.)

& Appreciate all you're efforts to this very very strong thread! almost 4,000 views!

NOTE: "Hope whom ever reads this post could say I agree or disagree backing up their claims with proper illustration of the motor effect and any formula's that my support their claims"

 

[vanhees71]

Again I must stress, I don't understand your insistance on a statement which contradicts very basic calculations within the system of Maxwell's equations. You find this in any serious textbook of classical electromagnetics under the name "Poynting's Theorem".

I can only repeat that this no-brainer gives the clear answer that the electric components of the electromagnetic field do the work on any distribution of matter
P=\int \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \vec{E} \cdot \vec{j}.
The current density \vec{j} has to be understood as containing both the flowing charges \vec{j}_{\text{charges}}=\rho \vec{v} and the equivalent current for any kind of magnetization (through ring currents or through generic magnetic moments of elementary particles associated with their spin, which is a semiclassical picture of a quantum phenomenon), \vec{j}_{\text{mag}}=c \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{M}.
As in all my postings I use Heaviside-Lorentz units (rationalized Gaussian units).

 

[Dale]

The e- to move and due to its strong nuclear force it moves the p+ and n0 ... the remaining lattice protons get yanked along due to E force tethering. ...

Likewise, the neutrons got yanked along by strong nuclear force, which tethers the n0 (neutron) to the p+ (proton).

Definition of work: a transfer of energy other than through heat.

None of the "tethering" stuff is relevant. Those are internal forces, and internal forces cannot do work on a system. Internal forces can only change a system's configuration, not its energy.

I am not yet convinced that the magnetic field cannot do work in the case of permanent magnets, but I am convinced that the magnetic field does not do work in a motor.

In a motor the integral of E.j that vanhees71 has posted fully accounts for the energy transfer in all situations. The B field is not relevant. If you double E.j then you double the work done on the motor regardless of B. If you double B then you do not change the work done on the motor. If you have E.j=0 then no work is done on the motor, regardless of B, but even if you have B=0 the work done on the motor is still given by E.j which then goes rapidly to thermal energy.

 

[cabraham]

Again I must stress, I don't understand your insistance on a statement which contradicts very basic calculations within the system of Maxwell's equations. You find this in any serious textbook of classical electromagnetics under the name "Poynting's Theorem".

I can only repeat that this no-brainer gives the clear answer that the electric components of the electromagnetic field do the work on any distribution of matter
P=\int \mathrm{d}^3 \vec{x} \vec{E} \cdot \vec{j}.
The current density \vec{j} has to be understood as containing both the flowing charges \vec{j}_{\text{charges}}=\rho \vec{v} and the equivalent current for any kind of magnetization (through ring currents or through generic magnetic moments of elementary particles associated with their spin, which is a semiclassical picture of a quantum phenomenon), \vec{j}_{\text{mag}}=c \vec{\nabla} \times \vec{M}.
As in all my postings I use Heaviside-Lorentz units (rationalized Gaussian units).

I've already refuted that argument. E dot J is the dot product of 2 vectors acting tangential to a current loop. No torque is incurred on the rotor. I'll draw a diagram & post it later. Without a diagram showing the forces, it's hard to visualize.

Claude

 

[Miyz]

Definition of work: a transfer of energy other than through heat.

"In physics, mechanical work is a scalar quantity that can be described as the product of a force and the distance through which it acts in the direction of the force.""If a constant force of magnitude F acts on a point that moves a distance d in the direction of the force, then the work W done by this force is calculated as: W= Fd"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)I do know that work is the transfer of energy. However, in our case what would you like to envision? Forces, not energy.(I personally don't and can't imagine the kinds of energy I just break it down to work then the forces involved in the system to have a better idea of what's going on.)

Eventually we know energy has been transferred from point A to B, or conserved as heat.

 

[Darwin123]

"In physics, mechanical work is a scalar quantity that can be described as the product of a force and the distance through which it acts in the direction of the force."


"If a constant force of magnitude F acts on a point that moves a distance d in the direction of the force, then the work W done by this force is calculated as: W= Fd"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)


I do know that work is the transfer of energy. However, in our case what would you like to envision? Forces, not energy.(I personally don't and can't imagine the kinds of energy I just break it down to work then the forces involved in the system to have a better idea of what's going on.)

Eventually we know energy has been transferred from point A to B, or conserved as heat.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of ambiguity in the jargon of physics. Units alone do not completely specify the important units alone. For instance, "potential difference" and "electromotive force" are completely different concepts, even though both have units of volts. Sometimes, "heat" means "energy" and sometime "heat" means entropy. Although these two definitions of "heat" have different units, they sometimes flow together. Sometimes they don't flow together.
That last sentence of yours can cause a lot of confusion if the physical concepts aren't specified, either explicitly or by the context. Students just starting can be thrown by the least bit of confusion.
There is a book that helps me a great deal with ambiguous physics concepts. It is:
"The Teaching of Physics" by J. W. Warren.
I have an edition published by Butterworth's in 1965.
Unfortunately, I don't know where or even if the book is still published anyplace. I don't know if there is a link to the book somewhere on-line. I certainly hope so.
It is a small book but it clears up a lot of basic questions students ask about physics. It discusses ambiguities in the jargon of electrodynamics, thermodynamics, calorimetry, classical mechanics and atomic physics.
This book emphasizes deficiencies in the way physics was taught in 1965. Judging by the questions people are still asking, I don't think the situation has improved since then. Most of the concepts clarified in this book are still taught the same way. Badly!

 

[Dale]

"In physics, mechanical work is a scalar quantity that can be described as the product of a force and the distance through which it acts in the direction of the force."

The concept of thermodynamic work (the definition I cited) is a generalization of the concept of mechanical work (the definition you cited). The thermodynamic definition is the one that is typically used for fields, since it can be applied in situations where the mechanical definition is hard or impossible to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(thermodynamics)
http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/lm/ch13/ch13.html#Section13.1
http://zonalandeducation.com/mstm/physics/mechanics/energy/work/work.html