Generator Cores: Magnets vs Coils

  • Thread starter Thread starter darkar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Core
AI Thread Summary
Using magnets as cores in generators is generally more practical than using coils because magnets do not require electrical connections, simplifying construction. While both setups can theoretically induce the same electromotive force (emf), moving magnets is often easier than moving coils, which necessitate additional components like slip rings and brushes. In a domestic animal-powered generator, such as one using cows to pull a turbine, enhancing the system's efficiency may involve gearing up the rotation speed rather than merely increasing the number of magnets and coils. This approach can maximize the output by leveraging the cows' strength effectively. Overall, the choice between magnets and coils impacts both design complexity and operational efficiency.
darkar
Messages
187
Reaction score
0
Teoretically and practically, Is there any different in using magnets as core compare to coil as core.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
darkar said:
Teoretically and practically, Is there any different in using magnets as core compare to coil as core.
If I understand your question correctly, yes. A coil has to be in an active circuit to produce magnetism. A generator relies upon the movement of a magnet within a coil to produce current. Therefore an electromagnet won't work unless powered from the outside, which would be kind of silly.
 
Sorry for i let u misunderstood the question.

Well, it is an assignment of my friend. He need to design a domestic animal powered
generator.

This is what he said:

bout the generator, can you tell me the difference between
moving the coil and moving the magnet. Theoretically, it will induce the
same emf, but practically, i remember that there is a difference.

For ur further infomation:

we are using cows to pull a turbine. because they can work relatively longer and are strong, even though they are slow, but we can make up for that with stronger magnets and more coils... and then this turbine will be in a magnetic field of a pair of fixed magnets. therefore, electricity, we can assume that there will be a battery charger that will be sufficiently large.

Thanks!
 
darkar said:
Sorry for i let u misunderstood the question.
Okay, I see. You're asking if it matters which part moves. Not in the sense of creating the electricity, but its far easier from a construction standpoint to move the magnets because they don't have to be electrically connected to anything. If you move the coil, you need slip rings, brushes, etc. to transfer the current from the coil to the rest of the circuit.
I hope that he's using the term 'turbine' to mean a rotary device as opposed to a real turbine which is meant to be turned by a fluid or gas impinging upon it. Since a cow has a lot of horsepower (no pun intended), he should consider gearing the thing way up rather than just adding more magnets and coils to make up for slow rotation. Kick it up to a couple of thousand rpm and watch the sparks fly!
 
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
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...
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