A couple of questions on that theory:

• Where do the electrons get enough energy to release a photon?  Imagine a copper wire sitting in a bath of liquid nitrogen, connected to a supply of <1 volt.  There's very little energy to excite the electrons, so that they can then release photons.
• How do the electrons know which way to emit the photons?  If it's random, then there will be no overall current.

At the heart of every photon is a magnon of spinning area of magnoflux inertia. If this massless magnetic momentum field is attracted forward at right angles by a voltage we get electric power. If the voltage is not at right angles we get a Cosine reduction in power and start producing VAR's or quantum photons. 

heart of every photon is a magnon of spinning area of magnoflux inertia.

Not in any model I recognize there is not. Magnons are simply the exchange particles for magnetism in the form of spin waves and experience no forces from static electric fields - the things that do are charged, not magnetic.

Mike

Mike

Please do the locked induction motor experiment yourself and let us all know the result.

Thank you.

I assume you are referring to this experiment where as one would expect from the series L-R and voltage source from the armature model, as you stall the motor the resistance term representing the mechanical load falls to zero and the current rises and becomes more imaginary? 

The experiment would benefit from a 'scope showing the phase offset between supply voltage, primary current and the current in the shunt windings - the whole point of a shaded pole motor is that the magnetic flux in the core is retarded in the vicinity of the shunts, to give the effect of a rotating magnetic field from a single phase excitation - which after all is what pulls the squirrel cage in a particular direction.

Note also that the current in the shunt windings would be noticeably higher without the clamp ammeter - in this case the one turn around a cm2 or so of laminated iron in the meter "jaws" is not totally negligible in comparison to the area of iron enclosed from the  motor core.

I agree that magnetism (and complex nos for that matter) is appalling taught to most electricians, and that leads to a lot of misunderstanding and confusion, not helped by some incorrect drawings in text books.

Where I differ, strongly, is that  I see no need to add further to the confusion by adding a new pseudo-particle. And  as it happens the name magnon is already used for something else,.

Mike

PS
A schematic of a shaded pole motor - which is what  I think that is  in the video - the sense of rotation is from the open part of the pole towards the side which is 'shaded' by the near-short circuit winding (or windings) - though washing machine pumps are usually a variant with one primary winding and the iron work forming a horse-shoe with the rotor completing the magnetic flux between the poles of it - see photo - cheers Wikipedia, .  The time delay between main and shaded pole areas is nothing like 90 degrees though, (I think 20-45 degrees perhaps) and this poor sense of direction translates into a  weak starting torque... as you note it is almost a transformer, albeit one where most of the magnetic flux from the primary coil misses the shorted secondary completely (*).


As induction motors go shaded pole machines are pretty poor , so tend to be seen in low power situations where torque is not critical - capacitor start and two real windings is a far better way to get a spinning field on single phase if you need something with a decent pull.

  (*). A similar game is played with microwave oven transformers where the core is shunted, so quite a lot of the magnetic field linking the primary and the heater winding  is steered round so that it misses out on the HT winding - giving a performance rather like an ideal transformer with a current limiting extra inductor in series, which limits the peak HT current in the magnetron - a crude "almost constant current" drive.

Thank you Mike for that explanation of how a shaded pole induction motor works. However, I am more interested in establishing that it is the spinning massless magnoflux that is transferring the power and not a particle.  

Poynting vector and De Broglie are good for DC but AC needs a 3D volume to move in and their formulas do not mention Cosine reductions which are necessary to describe  AC power and light rays fully.

Interesting enough physicists have discovered that the magnetic spin is 2.00231930043617+/-3. This means that whereas voltage in z direction and current in x direction in pure empty space stay the same but the flux moves by 0.16% forward in relative time so the 3D unit is sort of alive. 

Given that the Poynting vector points the direction of power flow for everything from 50Hz mains leads through microwave horn antennea and upwards to  X-rays, I'm not sure how you think it is not useful for AC?

Can you explain what you mean by 'cosine reductions' please ?

The none integer 'g' values (take care there are several slighlty different ones to consider for different particles) (and note the small correction from integer depends on the particle mass) is just the quantum electrodynamics at work - in effect the same thing that allows you to see the forces between 2 charged particles at rest as electrostatics, or by choosing a different measurement frame, where they appear to be moving (2 parallel currents then, rather than 2 static charges) there is a magnetic force effect due to the current.

It sorts itself out as of course in the moving reference frame, the flow of time and therefore the acceleration (how we see the force) are different.

There is indeed some uncertainty if there may be extra things going on not yet explained by standard models physics, but if there are then that will have an effect at parts in 10^10 or less, a precision not usually needed to explain motors turning - you do not even need relativity for that, so long as you are happy to separate charge position dependant electric fields E (volts/meter) and charge movement dependant magnetic fields H (amps/meter ) which of course is where we came in, ;-)

Mike.

Mike,

"Given that the Poynting vector points the direction of power flow for everything from 50Hz mains leads through microwave horn antennea and upwards to  X-rays, I'm not sure how you think it is not useful for AC?"

Exactly, Poynting points us to the voltage attraction direction which is in the z vector direction but to produce power we need to have a flux/current inertia area in the x,y direction and if this is not at right angles a Cosine reduction in real power will occur and we will have quantum VAR's.

Physicists have discovered that flux spin frequency moves at 2 times the speed of current amps which has relativity built in so as to move the whole massless electromagnetic unit sideways fractionally in time.. 

See sketch   

Hi Clive. Forgive me as I am no expert but the specific notion of flux spin frequency moving at twice the speed of current amps is not a standard concept in electromagnetism as I understand it, and I couldn’t find any direct references to support this claim ? 

You won't find it in any commonly accepted standard text. Such an assumption is neither necessary nor desirable as a part of the standard model of electromagnetic theory.

Mike.

(I am, originally by training at least, a physicist, although an experimental one, rather than a theoretician , so in the eyes of some an engineer/2)

The problem physicists have is electromagnetic power/energy is massless so cannot be weighed or measured apart from equivalents in retrospect which are not 3D. Time in frequency is measured alright But they should be able to find the shape of a volume of EM energy I am hoping??

The problem physicists have is electromagnetic power/energy is massless so cannot be weighed or measured apart from equivalents in retrospect which are not 3D. Time in frequency is measured alright But they should be able to find the shape of a volume of EM energy I am hoping??

Can The shape of a volume of (EM) energy not already be determined using various existing methods ?

CliveS said:

The problem physicists have is electromagnetic power/energy is massless

If e = mc², them m = e/c².

We electrical engineers know that power/energy must be balanced or a Cosine reduction in power and appearance of quantum Var's is witnessed. 

If a physics formula of electromagnetic light energy does not have a Cosine or more correctly a Sine symbol then it cannot correctly describe a 3D volume unit of density.  

Could you elaborate on what is meant by ‘quantum Vars’ this isn’t a standard term as far as I am aware. Is this some crossover into quantum mechanics ? 

Quantum electro dynamics I think is just physicists way of explain  imaginary VARs in 2 directions only. 

So what ? yes of course it does - its not a problem for physicists, more for folk who do not understand what physics is or how to use it  to describe reality. In general the change in mass of something when it acquires terrestrial thermo-chemical  sort of energies is negligible,  The change in mass of my car when parked in the drive compared to the higher mass when pelting down the M3 or similar is utterly dwarfed the change in mass due to the thermal change in its volume altering the amount of air inside, the steady addition or subtraction of odd dust particles, dead flies on the grill, mud on the tyres or whatever.

Consider a car with a rest mass of 1 tonne (1000kilos) , Now let us move it at 30m/sec (3600 sec per hour) 96km per hour, nearer to 60 mph than 70, honestly officer.

Energy is 1/2.m*v^2 = 500,000*30*30 = 450MJ

Mass change is E/c^2 = 0.000000005 kg = 0.005 milii-grams >  about 1% of the weight of ink in a single printed full stop.

It only starts to noticeably increase the mass  (making it harder to accelerate) when the speed of the car gets to about 1% of 'c' which would really be going some, even for Mrs MAPJ1 driving.

Mike.

Good thinking Mike, have you ever tried to work out the difference in weight of a 12 volt battery  flat to full charge and its affect on specific gravity ??

Well there are several changes in a car battery between flat (2 lead plates and some acid) and charged. Not least the formation of  lead oxide on the positive plate, changes in electrolyte density and so on.  There is of course an energy related  change in mass in terms of how that battery accelerates due to a given force, or indeed if the battery were in outer space and attracting smaller items to orbit around it, but again like the car, practically this is utterly dwarfed by the (in)accuracy to which you can measure the weight of the thing in the first place and then correctly discount all the other effects.

The only time I have ever really had to consider relativity for real was for part of some medical kit that was designed for accelerating protons. In that the drift tubes between the RF resonator cavities had to allow for the 'speed limit' and did not get shorter at the high energy end of the machine quite as fast (as the protons di not get quite as fast) as normal Newtonian mechanics might have predicted. Even then just using special (Lorenz contraction) relativity was quite enough precision.

Most of the time, all the relativity and QED  stuff is a diddy correction on traditional mechanics and EM. Normal quantum mechanics however you rely upon  every time you operate a transistor - and there are millions of those in many of the 'chips' in the device you use to read this forum. (the non mathematical holes and electrons model gets you a long way with qualitative arm waving explanations, but to actually design new semiconductor devices rather than just to use ones made by others, and to accurately understand & predict behaviour of band gaps at junctions etc, sadly, needs the full maths, -which is where I usually find myself deferring to a colleague ..)

Mike