studiot

So 800 is the rating. It will not draw that amount under no load. This is a very very important electrical principle:_ The power or total energy is determined by the load, not by the supply. The rating on a device is the maximum that might be drawn. It does not imply that amount will (ever) be drawn from the supply. So how did you measure the 336?

Your loss if you still don't understand it.

What do you mean no extra load? How are you measuring the 800 and 336 watts?

Equation 2 says v2 minus v1 over 20.................. in every computin, mathematics , physics and engineering school on the planet, including the Kahn Academy. You meant (V1-V2) /20 - 5 + (V2-V3) /40 -7.5. It's varously called Pedmas, Bodmas and other things. Anyway if you want the Physics explained I will leave you to look up how to correctly write down a mathematical equation and experiment with putting the numbers into a calculator to see what happens. Say V1 is 20 and V2 is 10, What does your calculator output for calculating it both ways? Then we can get on with the Physics.

Then why didn't you write it that way in the equation?

By placing the windings in slots they are actually moved out of the position of maximum field. However if the armature was smooth and the windings were on the surface, there would be considerable sideways force generated on them (it's still there in the slots) so they would tend to slip sideways. It doesn't matter that the windings are out of the most intense part of the field because they still cut the same number of field lines. The slots are there to stop the sideways slip and hold the windings in place. The solution to eddy currents is sheet or segmental construction since the eddy conduction path is broken at every interface. However there is a cost-benefit assessment to be made becasue the thinner the laminations the more expensive they are. The principle of brake testing applies to all rotary machinery, I had thought you would be interested.

Show me anywhere in those three equations where any two voltages are subtracted. That is just nonsense. Striclty this reads voltage at node2 minus a fictituous current given by the voltage at node1 divided by 20 minus 5 amps plus the voltage at node 2 minus the fictituous current given by voltage at node3 divided by 40 minus 7.5 amps = zero. I'm sure you (or your teacher) didn't mean this but this is what you have posted here.

You have a most unfortunate (for you) way of alienating those who try to help you. Using the proper versions of KVL and KCL or Kirchoff's first and second Laws will always enable you to solve a circuit. Using a clever shorcut method combining these will only work sometimes. But is only useful if you are a) Going to do a lot of this without a computer. b) Going to teach to those who do not need to know. If you are quick and slick with circuits, like Sensei then by all means use these methods. But if you are just struggling and simply want to pass your exams, a bit of effort KVL and KCL is all you need. Look here for the Kahn Academy's own reason why this shortcuts will not always work. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/electrical-engineering/ee-circuit-analysis-topic/ee-dc-circuit-analysis/a/ee-loop-current-method The point about KVL and KCL is that together they will provide you with more equations than you have unknowns for a given circuit. So you can be selective and only pick enough equations for your solution. So learn these first properly before you try some bastard combination. You cannot use them in any case when you want to introduce more complicated circuit elements. How many circuits do you know that only have resistors (and current/voltage sources) ? How would you get on with inductance, capacitance, negative resistance devices, transistors, op amps, an so on in circuit?

Right; a current source provides a constant current regardless of the voltage applied to that source by the rest of the circuit. So a 5 amp source always provides 5 amps, whatever it is connected to. Compare this with a 5 amp current sink which draws (or tries to) 5 amps regardless of whatever it is connected to. Since currrent can flow in either of two directions through a source or sink It is a requirement that the arrow in a current source has to point in the direction of conventional current flow. So in your circuit the arrows in both the 5 amp source and the 7.5 amp source point into the node you have labelled 2 in red. You should not associate + or - signs with the nodes that is a different method. It is regrettably common for those that think they know better to revise the offerings of great men. This is the case with Kirchoff. There is no such thing as Kirchoff's node voltage equation. Kirchoff's node equation is an xpression of the Law of conservation of charge and states Current flowing into a node must equal current flowing out of that node. So we must have a convention and your tutor obviously regards current inflow as negative and and current outflow as positive. as in equation 2. The currents in the resistors are unknown and should be denoted Ir where r is the number (not value) of the resistor in the circuit. This is why you should number the resistors (and other components) in a circuit. So I will number the 20 ohm resistor R1 and the 40 ohm resistor R2 So equation 2 should now read Current out of node 2 is I1 + I2 - 5 - 7.5 amps They cannot all be the same sign can you see why ? Note that at this stage we do not know I1 and I2 However we can write similar equations for all the rest of the nodes in the circuit and these currents will appear in some of them. This will give us a set of simultaneous equations we may be able to solve for the currents. This method is also known as the method of branch currents because every current into or out of a node comes from a different branch. I will stop there to allow you to see if you can number the rest of the nodes and resistors and try to write the node equations for them.

Thank you for confirming this. Before we proceed do you know what a current source is as a circuit element? I ask because someone has drawn that circuit incorrectly so it it is missing some information.

Of course, if you look at the equations neither make sense since the 5 and 7.5 mentioned appear as voltages there, not currents.

I thought that at first, but then I wondered if the circuit elements were more complicated as that is almost a standard symbol for a current source.

Yes you need to know the difference between power and energy. This is very important. As regards your quest for efficiency You are a practical chap so here is a short description of testing a small electrical machine, along with a sample calculation from actual measurements. There are many factors to consider when designing an armature. Have you heard of eddy currents? Materials play an important part so that magnetic saturation does not occur or the device will run out of steam prematurely. Do you know why the windings are buried in slots in the armature ? Here is a chart shown losses in a/c machines. This should provide a start and some food for thought.

Do you understand how and why a magentic field affects the flow of electrons? It is called the Lorenz force. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html

Are the 5 amp and 7.5 amp shunts contant current sources or what?

I don't think the OP actually means 'mathematically multiply', I think he wants to improve the generation efficiency. However he is probably unaware that electrical generators are pretty damn efficient already 90% or better so any multiplication factor is going to be less than 1.2.

Yes but it is more usual to use torque and angular velocity when considering shaft work. Torque is (time) rate of change of angular velocity. just as Force is (time) rate of change of linear velocity.

Please be aware the the Navy diver tables have a significantly smaller margin of safety than civilian sport tables. You are correct in thinking that the decompression from 190 feet needs to be done in stages. The time of dive at the max depth is known as bottom time and one hour at this depth would be a huge bottom time. The decompression time is almost always longer than the bottom time. As a comparison, using PADI dive tables I can get only about 4 to 5 minute bottom time at on the wrecks at the bottom of Lyme Bay ( there is a WW1 submarine down there), at a depth of 40 metres (130 feet). This is using plain compressed air. This is also why divers going below 30 metres tend to use special gas mixtures. The decompression tables for these are quite different.

It takes more energy to run a heavy generator up to speed, but once it is running at speed there is only friction to overcome (mechanically) and the difference is insignificant. Furthermore the heavier armature has a better flywheel effect.

Your model involves a one proton-one electron system. As such the one electron must, by definition be unpaired. Any unpaired electron has a magnetic moment. So, by definition your system involves magnetism. I have already told you why, by definition, even one moving electron constitutes an electric current. PLEASE DO NOT PUT WORDS I DID NOT SAY INTO MY MOUTH

As before you don't know what you are talking about. Earnshaw's theorem does not depend upon Coulomb's Law. Coulomb's Law is a sufficent condition because it obeys Laplace's equation. But it is not a necessary condition because many other functions also obey Laplace's equation. So it is very big hearted of you to allow Earnshaw with all the benefit of 21st century knowledge. You have absolutely no idea what an electric current is. And you appear to be denying the observed magnetic effect of moving charge. Are you invoking God for this as well? You have explained nothing, either in principle or mathematically. Yet you have the affrontery to challenge professional spectroscopists to calculate spectra mathematically, and to mock the very real use our modern ability to observe and measure such spectra has brought to modern medicine and its ability in turn to combat plagues. Blame God for the plagues and praise modern medicine for curing them. Because you can't do it, here is a mathematical comparison of the formulae for the kinetic energy of an isolated particle confined to a rectangular box of dimensions a x b x c. Clasically the energy is given by [math]E = \frac{{M{v^2}}}{2}[/math] In Quantum Mechanics the energy is given by integer values of the parameter n which approach infinity in number. [math]E = \frac{{{h^2}}}{{8M}}\left[ {{{\left( {\frac{{n{}_x}}{a}} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\frac{{n{}_y}}{b}} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\frac{{n{}_z}}{c}} \right)}^2} + } \right][/math] Can you see why we normally choose the classical equation, which yields sensibly the same results? These formulae are given in mathmarkup language (MathML) or LaTex. There are tutorials on this site about this. You may need to refresh your page for the system to automatically translate the code into maths. As a matter of interest can you maths tell you if the classical energy obeys Laplace's equation?

By the way the planetary/satellite model of the atom is due to Rutherford, not Bohr. https://www.britannica.com/science/Rutherford-atomic-model Rutherford introduced his model as a result of experimental evidence, thus moving on from Thompson's earlier 'plum pudding' model. Bohr introduced a modification of great significance, following De Broglie. Sommerfield made what was probably the last major improvement to this semi classical model by introducing elliptical orbits. So yes, the atomic model we are discussing here is the Bohr model. And yes the Scientific method has been shown by this process to allow for the possibility of continual improvement. On the other hand you have not addressed my comments, whilst continuing to spout nonsense, so I am reporting this and asking for this thread to be closed. If you wish to discuss God, I'm out of here.

Of course it is not accidental both your analysis and the original Rutherford-Bohr analysis are empirical in that theory are adjusted to fit the same experimental observations. What I am telling you is that your analysis is well over 50 years old. Do you contend that we have learned nothing in the last 3/4 of a century? I remember in the 1960s this idea of attraction afar and repulsion at close range was put forward at basic physics level. But it is an overall effect, a combination of many things. You are incorrectly ascribing it to one cause. It is particularly because of this I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to get you to discuss the mechanism of your 'balance point'. You have got this fundamentally wrong because you have completely missed something out here. That is why your analysis does not work for any system more complicated than a one proton-one electron system. This thread has 100+ posts and all wasted because you have made a fundamental error right at the beginning. So where do the particles obtain this thermal energy to have a higher temperature? I see no mechanism available in your proposed system. Fine I await your comments.

I see that you are still not listening. Pity for you. I will try one last time to lay out the logic as to where you are right (yes in some places you are indeed right) and where you are just plain wrong. First of all, classical electrostatics forbids you to have a static system of electric charges, under coulomb forces alone. In particular Earnshaw's Theorem say OK so if we have a system of two or more charges, the charges must be moving. Period. In this case the proton is approximately 1800 times as massive as the elctron so we take the proton reference frame as the basis and refer the electron's motion to it. So the electron is moving relative to the proton. Now an electron in motion is the definition of an electric current. And an electric current has an associated magnetic field. So there is an associated magnetic field, hence the Biot Savart Law is applicable. Note by 'stationary' Wiki means steady. So you have said that the electron would crash into the proton under coulomb forces. Why? For the same reason the Earth does not crash into the Sun under classical gravitational forces. Because it is in motion. So gravitational attraction provides the centripetal force to accelerate the Earth's trajectory into the path of a closed curve. Similarly the coulombic attraction accelerates the electron's trajectory into the path of a closed curve. That is essentially Bohr's satellite theory, as you have called it. However the problem (acknowledged by Bohr and his contempories) is that an accelerating charge must interfere with its own magnetic field (Biot Savart or Lorentz) to generate electromagnetic waves. But the electron in an atom does not do that. An electron in a cathode ray definitely does emit EM radiation. There is no classical explanation for this. The why is where the Quantum Theory enters but I will not pursue that here and now, since this is a completely classical analysis (like yours). Now you have taken empirical measurements and calculated (with your proposal) the simple hydrogen first spectra, as Bohr did, and got pretty good agreement with observation, as Bohr did. Does this graph look familiar? It is the Lennard Jones Potential I mentioned earlier. And it is very similar to your proposal, although the formula is more complicated. This is also empirical. Finally I asked you to look at one more thing. The Madelung constan. This is a method of calculating the combined effect of all other ( than its associated proton) positive charges influencing the electron on the other side to provide what you call your point of balance - the value you admit you can't calculate for yourself. Now tell me again that these four pieces of Physics I recommended are not relevant.

Gas, gas and more gas. In the words of Mick Jagger It's a gas, gas , gas Or the popular TV program It's all gas and gaiters. What about solids? In particular ionic solids. Your explanation is in direct conflict with both observation and existing theory. That is why I asked you to a) Examine the forces acting on an electron accoring to your equation b) Review Madelung constants. You have refused to do either. I think the discussion subsequent to your reply to my definition of dipoles and dipole moments shows conclusively that you don't know what you are talking about. It is a pity that your obstinacy will not accept any helpful comments as that might let you improve your proposals to at least equal those of Lennard Jones, which I also asked you to look at. If you actually managed to achieve this your equation is much simpler than the LJ one so would be a definite improvement.