Can someone explain the physics behind maglev trains?

AI Thread Summary
Maglev trains utilize magnetic levitation through the interaction of superconductors and magnetic fields. The track acts as a bar magnet, while superconductors cooled with liquid nitrogen create a magnetic field that opposes the track's field, allowing the train to levitate. Some discussions highlight that traditional maglev systems often rely on inducing eddy currents in conductive tracks rather than solely using superconductors. The conversation also notes that while superconductors can enhance magnetic fields, their application in large-scale trains is not yet practical. Overall, the physics of maglev trains involves complex interactions between magnetism and electricity, with various methods employed to achieve levitation and propulsion.
wendylai
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I've done some research on maglev trains, but the equations are too complex for me to solve, etc.

I haven't taken calculus nor studied magnetism yet,
can anybody explain just the basics of physics concepts used in a maglev train?

thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The track that the maglev rides on is basically a bar magnet , And on the undercarriage of the train they have superconductors with liquid nitrogen in them to cool the super conductor so it will allow the magnetic field from the track to induce a current in the superconductor, and this flow of electrons will create a magnetic field in the opposite direction to levitate the train.


This is a cool video on a little maglev train and superconductors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is that really so? I though the track of a maglev was a high conductance metal in which eddy currents are induced by an alternating field in the vehicle coils. The resulting force (Lenz's Law) is repulsive, which is what you want. Small changes in the phases of the support coils can also generate forward of backward forces. Google Laithwaite, maglev and linear motors etc.

The (impressive) superconducting model in the movie is not representative of normal maglev systems. There is just not enough capacity for superconductive cooling to run a 'real' train... Yet.
 
I could be wrong but i swore i read somewhere that some of them had superconductors in them . And they absolutely have maglevs of what you described .

this talks about the superconducting maglev train.
http://reference.findtarget.com/search/JR%E2%80%93Maglev/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes. Superconductors may be used, sometimes, in the coils of electromagnets to allow huge currents to be used for achieving the high magnetic fields - but it's not just in the 'passive' arrangement of induced currents in a superconducting block over a permanent magnet, as in the movie.

I have never come across the sort of large permanent magnet arrays which would be needed to scale up the little model. The induced currents in a practical system are more likely to be in the rail.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top