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
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Scalar and vector potentials in Coulomb gauge Assume Coulomb gauge so that $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}=0.\tag{1}$$ The scalar potential ##\phi## is described by Poisson's equation $$\nabla^2 \phi = -\frac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0}\tag{2}$$ which has the instantaneous general solution given by $$\phi(\mathbf{r},t)=\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0}\int \frac{\rho(\mathbf{r}',t)}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^3r'.\tag{3}$$ In Coulomb gauge the vector potential ##\mathbf{A}## is given by...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Back
Top