On Aug 18, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
The effect works with magnetic bearings and not with non-magnetic
bearings. That is sufficient to establish the effect is
electromagnetic.
Yes, for sure.
Further, a back-emf is produced, which confirms it is
electromagnetic.
No, for sure not!
If the motor runs, using electric power and turning it into mechanical
energy, then it must produce a back EMF, whether it's fundamentally an
EM effect, a heat effect, or the consequence of magic gerbils living
inside the ball bearings.
No back EMF => no electrical energy consumed => it's not an electric
motor, whatever it may be.
Um ... or anyhow, I think that's the case...
How do you get a back emf with a non-electromagnetic effect?
Induction is an electromagnetic effect.
If you use power to run a heating element to run a steam engine the
resistance doesn't change depending on whether you use the steam to
run a motor or not. There is no rpm related or even load related
effect. Calories into a submerged resistor equals calories out. It
resistance is only a function of operating temperature. This motor
has a clear (to me) rpm based back emf effect. If course I've done a
lot more fooling around with it than I documented, so perhaps I
haven't conveyed that clearly. However, I did provide traces at high
rpms where the motor is putting out more power than the low rpm run,
and yet where the resistors stabilize temperature. I don't know how
this can happen unless there is an induction based back emf to
account for the energy not showing up in the resistors.
I suppose you maintain the resistance of the ball bearings increases
with rpms, not just with moving vs not moving. I've been meaning to
do an experiment along those lines but have been side-tracked with
other experiments. Also, I've been looking for an optical rpm
transducer with a proportional voltage output so I can do an x-y plot
on the scope of rpms vs voltage drop.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
