Talk:Magneto (power generation)

Early magnetos were probably very inefficient
That is, in a sense. The air gaps, for some particular ranges of rotor positions, were comparatively huge. Different geometry, such as found in modern alternators, would have made them much smaller. (Regarding large physical sizes for given conversion power, electrostatic motors, based on electric (electrostatic) fields instead of magnetic fields, have been built, but for a given power output, are quite large.)

The huge air gaps in early motors, however, had much more serious consequences; such motors were horribly inefficient. These motors (until the Gramme ring, afaik) were based on a magnet's attribute of attracting ferromagnetic objects — Progressively reducing the air gap.

Only when air gaps were greatly reduced did motors have practical efficiencies. Modern electrodynamic loudspeakers (all midrange and woofers) are based on a more-sophisticated geometry, which depends upon mutually-orthogonal current flow, lines of magnetic force, and resulting force created by the conductor. This is in contrast to the earlier principle of attraction (which was used in early loudspeakers). There are a few illustrations of early inefficient motors in Ganot's Physics, translated into English; it was extremely popular in the late 1800s, apparently; different editions are likely to include different designs, because they were evolving rather quickly. Google has digitized at least two editions of Ganot, even preserving highlight color in illustrations (one color of ink only).

I was quite surprised to see this article's definition of a magneto; I had regarded all generators with AC output to be alternators.

Best regards, Nikevich (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What does "efficiency" mean? Do we mean work done vs. power out, or do we mean a power rating for the size, weight and cost of the machine? Early magneto generators were mostly limited by the second, not directly the first. The weak magnets meant a very expensive machine to achieve useful power, which was their main drawback. As the machine also became physically large, this imposes mechanical inefficiencies too (friction, inertia, windage etc.). As to the magnetic efficiency of their pole circuits, for a sophisticated magneto from Nollet or de Meritens, this was probably better than their contemporary bipolar machines.
 * Motors work by the Lorentz force between two fields, not simple attraction from one field. Only the very earliest motors, such as the mouse mill motor, used simple attraction. These necessarily had large pole gaps(sic) because they relied on some distance over which to do the work of attracting the rotor, not just flux across a gap and generating a perpendicular force. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge
It has been suggested that this page or section be merged with magneto. Both articles seem to have the same referent and scope. Chrisrus (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * oppose Yet again, magneto and magneto (generator) describe the same physical principle, but have different scope in terms of their engineering. Broadly, magnetos weren't used as generators - the more complicated dynamos and alternators were needed to do that efficiently. In some rare and narrow cases (lighthouses are hardly commonplace), the simplicity of the magneto did win out. This is the well-defined scope that magneto (generator) covers.


 * I would agree that this is perhaps not clear from the two paragraphs of the lead, and it's necessary to read into the body of the article to find the distinction. That would seem to be reason to expand the lead, not to merge. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, but as a reader please accept my feedback that something be done because it's very strange for the reader. Of course we are allowed to have two articles about the same referent so long as they have clearly different scopes.  These don't have clearly different scopes.  The fact that I am not the first implied by you saying "yet again" only supports the position that this situation needs correction because other readers must have found the situation confusing. Chrisrus (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've been reading these two articles a little. This reader understands that a magneto is a hand-cranked magneto (generator).  The other way to say that would be that a magneto (generator) is a differently-powered (not hand-cranked) magneto.  Both are generators that produce electricity by spinning a coiled wire inside a magnet.  The difference is what is doing the cranking, is that correct?  Have I understood or misunderstood? Chrisrus (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * A "magneto" is a physical principle. There are many, many sorts. Some are hand-cranked, some driven by engines, but their distinguishing feature is the permanent magnet field (and nothing else). Only three types were mass-produced (telephone, ignition, bicycle) and they were not, in general, used for large-scale power generation. Large scale power was done by dynamos, later by alternators.
 * There are of course exceptions. In some obscure cases (arc lamps and lighthouses), large power magnetos were indeed used. As this is the exceptional case, it's worthy of separate note.
 * There are several articles within scope here: magneto is obvious, but the sub-types of ignition magneto, telephone magneto and bicycle dynamo all deserve decent coverage in their articles too. I'm thus puzzled as to why the one article here that is anywhere near a decent treatment of its topic is the one under attack for merge or deletion? How about the effort going into that instead being put towards fixing ignition magneto? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing and no one is under attack. I'm just a reader that noticed we have two articles which as written apear to be generators called magnetos, that's all: they bpth say they are about generators, not physical principles.  One is called simply "magneto" and the other is called "magneto (generator)" All I know about the subject is what is written in these articles.
 * Let's leave those other magnetos out of it, as those others you mention are clearly about particular kinds of magnetos and are not confusing to this reader. "Magneto" as written refers to a type of generator which works on a certain principle, not a principle that is used to make a certain type of generator.  It's not the same.
 * Please, in as few words as possible, what is the difference between the scope of the article Magneto and the scope of the article Magneto (generator)? For example, you could say "one is a subset of the other" or "a ven diagram of their scopes would overlap imperfectly" or "one is a particular sort of the other".  As written, both are clearly subsets of the article generator.  Chrisrus (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference between a Magneto and a magneto (generator)? Chrisrus (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello Chrisrus. I agree with you that all magnetos are generators so there is no justification for having two articles. I think Andy Dingley is claiming that the term "generator" only applies to high power generators but I would disagree with this definition. Anyway, he does not own the articles so there is no reason why we should not have another try at merging them. Biscuittin (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, the strongest possible oppose to a merge with either of the really high level articles at generator or magneto. How does that sort of "Merge everything into one huge article" possibly improve structure or readability? We wouldn't merge brushless motor and universal motor into electric motor, just because they're both motors? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You still have not answered the question: "What is the difference between a Magneto and a magneto (generator)?" All magnetos are generators. Biscuittin (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added a merge tag on the grounds that all magnetos are generators. Indeed, the first line of the Magneto article reads "A magneto is an electrical generator..." Biscuittin (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am quite happy to keep Ignition magneto and Telephone magneto as separate articles because they describe particular types of magneto. Biscuittin (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy Dingley has still not answered the question "What is the difference between a Magneto and a magneto (generator)" so he is not making a good case. However, I will try to answer the question for him. I think he is trying to distinguish between low-power magnetos (e.g. Ignition magneto) and high-power magnetos, e.g. for arc lighting. If so, I think the problem could be solved by renaming magneto (generator), perhaps as High power magneto. My objection to the existing arrangement is that it creates confusion because all magnetos are generators. Biscuittin (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't tell for sure because I'm just a reader of these articles who is still pretty confused by there being two of them and why they should be separate. But it looks to me like some kind of WP:POVFORK here or something similar, where Wikipedians couldn't get along and so agreed that instead of working together they decided to have two articles about the same thing.  But you all know more about this than I do, but if I don't know what's going on with these two articles it's not my fault, it's the fault of the articles, because I've read them both and it's their job to teach people like me what the difference is between these referents, which based on reading these articles seem like the same thing.  Chrisrus (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You may be right about WP:POVFORK but I think we can resolve the problem by treating Magneto as a Broad concept article. There are already two sub-articles about specific types of magneto - Ignition magneto and Telephone magneto. I propose that Magneto (generator) be treated as a third sub-article and re-named High power magneto. Does this make sense to you? Biscuittin (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead currently includes, "Despite this, they have never been widely applied for the purposes of bulk electricity generation, for the same purposes or to the same extent as either dynamos or alternators. Only in a few specialised cases, as described here, have they been used for power generation."
 * What part of that is unclear to you?
 * Magnetos are a broad topic. This article is on a narrow topic. It is appropriate to separate them like that. This article manages to give reasonable coverage of that significant, but narrow, topic without being sidetracked into covering too many other aspects of magnetos (although the wind turbine overlap is starting to look dubious). We are not best served by throwing everything into one huge unstructured article - something that WP already has far too much of. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Both Chrisrus and I have repeatedly asked you the question "What is the difference between a magneto and a magneto (generator). Until you answer this question, you have no credibility. Biscuittin (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

How about we start by moving most of the non-power-generation discussion from Magneto (power generation) to Magneto. I have added a Main article link from Magneto to Magneto (power generation). ~Kvng (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If all Magnetos work on the same principle, then they should be in the same article, even if some are more efficient than others. Perhaps there could be a heading in the article where it talks about how and when the larger ones were made, as well as their uses.Galvantua (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Permanent magnet synchronous generator
It seems to me is that permanent magnet synchronous generator is just another name for magneto (generator). Maybe we should just change that page to redirect to this page. Z22 (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * oppose Maybe we should have even one reference on permanent magnet synchronous generator before we start seeing it as suitable notable content to dump into other, referenced, articles? Otherwise why not invent another unsourced article, perhaps "whirly roundy generator" that is an obvious and trivial combination of terms, but with no sourcing to support that their combination makes a notable whole as a concept and article topic, then we could merge that in too. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See my clarification below. No contents dumped from there to here. Just simply wipe out the whole thing and change it to redirect to this page. With your new reference on wind turbine, it appears that permanent magnet synchronous generator is another term for magneto (generator). Another reason for the redirect. Z22 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I actually proposed to wipe out the whole contents on permanent magnet synchronous generator page and change that page to redirect to this page. Are the merge from and to the right tags for this situation? The contents there are unsourced and it has a discussion about generic alternator stuff which already exist in various pages. So there is no point on having that as a separate page or having any of its contents to transfer anywhere. Z22 (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would possibly support making it a redirect to here, my concern is that when we don't have any sourced explanation of what a PMSG is, then it's inappropriate to merge such unsourced content. So far we have content that is a trivial duplication of the magneto principle, some vague unsourced woffle, and a big chunk of important content that isn't even written yet.
 * It does seem that PMSG is a novel development for use in wind turbines, and its function is not merely to be a permanent magnet generator, but to solve what is a real problem with wind turbines – matching shaft speed to line frequency. As wind turbines are a growing area, this is a significant technical problem and it appears that this solution to it is both important and novel, then I think there's a better article under that title alone – subject of course to writing and sourcing it. Electrically I'm more of a historian than a current (sic)  engineer, and I just don't know what these new frequency-matching PMSG inverter drives are about as yet. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew Dingley, what is the difference between a Magneto and a magneto (generator)? Chrisrus (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Both are "generators" as a physical principle, however magnetos were not the generator type adopted for bulk power generation (dynamos and alternators were used instead). However, in a few narrow uses, magnetos were used for this type of larger power generation. That's what this article covers. Compared to most of the articles under the broad topic of "generators", the article does it rather better too. It is sourced and accurate: some of the others are dire. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, lets try again. The magneto article is about magnetos in general. The magneto (generator) article is about magnetos for (quote) "larger power generation". My objection is that "magneto (generator)" is misleading because all magnetos are generators. I am therefore suggesting a re-name to High power magneto because I think this more accurately describes the article content. I admit that I cannot produce a reference to the term "High power magneto" but it is simply meant to be a title which describes the content of the article. Can you produce a reference to the term "magneto (generator)"?  Biscuittin (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why the hell should I? It's a disambiguation, per WP:NATURAL. "High power magneto" is a WP:NEOLOGISM. You go and source your random inventions.
 * As to the relevance of "generator" as a term, then are ignition magnetos or telephone magnetos there to ring bells or to provide generated power available for outside the system? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, we could call it Magneto (generator of power for outside systems) but it would be a cumbersome title. Biscuittin (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the article history. I see you played this game previously in 2011. Biscuittin (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have made some changes to Magneto (disambiguation) to try to clarify the distinction between magneto and magneto (generator). Biscuittin (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
The merge dispute is under discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard. Biscuittin (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The result of the merge dispute will be a Request for Comments, with three options: merge Magneto (generator) into Magneto; rename Magneto (generator) to Magneto (bulk power generator); leave this article unchanged as Magneto (generator). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

RFC on the Status of This Article
Which of three alternatives should be taken concerning the article Magneto (generator)? The alternatives are: 1, merge this article, [[Magneto (generator) into Magneto; 2, rename this article from Magneto (generator) to Magneto (bulk power generator); 3, leave this article unchanged with its current name and distinct from the overall article Magneto?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In the Survey section, provide your opinion, with supporting rationale, as Option 1, Option 2, or Option 3. Do not comment on the comments of other editors in the Survey. (Such comments may be hatted or moved.) Threaded discussion may be conducted in the Threaded Discussion section. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * We must merge (option 1) these two articles because WP:CONTENTFORK. Chrisrus (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Option 3. Leave as is. There is no problem here to be fixed. This is not a POV content fork, it's simply one of the four sub articles across a broad topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Option 2. I favour keeping the article and renaming it as Magneto (bulk power generator). My reasons are: (a) the present title Magneto (generator) is confusing because all magnetos are generators, (b) Magneto (bulk power generator) is a distinct type of magneto, like ignition magneto and telephone magneto, so it is appropriate to have a separate article. Biscuittin (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have any problem with having them separate. Option 3 would be fine. However, I also got the point of other editors about having the title Magneto (generator) is confusion. So maybe #2 is a way to try to make it more distinct. If Magneto (bulk power generator) is too long maybe just Magneto (power generation)? Z22 (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I prefer option 1. Magneto needs to be a WP:SUMMARY article for all the magneto articles e.g. Telephone magneto, Ignition magneto. Conceptually we'd be merging everything together and then have a too-long article and would decide how to split it up. I don't think we would create a Bulk power magneto article in such an exercise.
 * Empirical evidence shows that we did just that, and we did create a sub article for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to do some edits to see if you're right. Are we ready to start trying things or do we need to talk about it more? ~Kvng (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that you've just edited my talk page comment to make it look like I'm supporting Biscuittin's "Option 2" (Just to make it clear, I'm not), then I think you've been quite BOLD enough already. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I've backed out my error. Feel free to revert if you think it important to retain your commentary about it. ~Kvng (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge (option 1). Most of the present content of the two articles is overlapping. No-one has explained which magnetos qualify as "bulk power" and which don't. Bicycle "dynamos" are mentioned in both articles, hand torches are mentioned only in this "bulk power" article. Maproom (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge (option 1). A magneto is a magneto, the physics remains the same, summarize and link to the various stubs.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge (option 1). I'm not really seeing such a distinct topic between the two to justify different articles. There isn't that much content in either to say they need to be split, so a merge would appear pretty straight forward. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion
According to WP:CFORK, the way to begin is to "check with people who watch the respective articles and participate in talk page discussions to see if the fork was deliberate. If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article." This implies that we should first all read WP:CFORK and then check the article history, talk page archives, relevant archived talk page threads, and talk to those who had participated in creating or opposing the fork, so that we can decide if the fork is "acceptable" or "unacceptable", to use the terminology of WP:CFORK.

I firmly believe that doing the above due diligence will demonstrate that this fork is an "unacceptable" fork. Chrisrus (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that what happened in the past is not important. We should judge the articles as they are now. Biscuittin (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You may not think that, but you'd be wrong. See here: WP:CFORK.  It says we have to find out if the fork was created because the article naturally needed to fork, or whether it was just done as a compromise or agreement because Wikipedians couldn't agringe.  If it's the former, the fork is "acceptable".  If it's the latter, it's called "unacceptable".  This is the way it is.  We may not split articles into two just because we can't agree how an article will be written or who will write the article.  So we have to look at how the fork was made and why.  Chrisrus (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Magneto (power generation) is the first suggestion I've seen that could be an improvement over the current name. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * If asked to explain, might you repeat the following:

"'...magneto and magneto (generator) describe the same physical principle, but have different scope in terms of their engineering. Broadly, magnetos weren't used as generators - the more complicated dynamos and alternators were needed to do that efficiently. In some rare and narrow cases (lighthouses are hardly commonplace), the simplicity of the magneto did win out. This is the well-defined scope that magneto (generator) covers. ..."?Chrisrus (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to be in the definitions. I claim that anything which generates electricity (no matter how small the number of watts) is a generator. The same applies to the word "power". Power is power, no matter how small the number of watts. This is why I want to include the word "bulk" for clarification. Biscuittin (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Is this process supposed to reach a conclusion or is it just a talking shop? Biscuittin (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Per Wikipedia_talk:Content_forking, clearly Chrisrus is WP:FORUMSHOPPING until WP delivers the "right" answer to him. Why is he so keen to have deleted an article he has made no contributions to, and has no understanding of? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please don't change the subject. This is all about me that's relevant here: I was working on Magneto (disambiguation) when I noticed this "unacceptable" fork.  If you would rather discuss me or what I do, there are proper fora for that.  Chrisrus (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't want to discuss either of you. I just want a decision. Biscuittin (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Then either your issue should be with all the Wikipedians who decided a long time ago that local article consensus is not allowed to artificially divide one article into two articles on the same referent just because the editors can't agree, or just accept the merge. Chrisrus (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
I have used BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I will wait and see whether there is a reversion before updating any links. Biscuittin (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I plan to start a deletion request for Magneto (generator) as soon as appropriate on WP:CFORK grounds, so we should merge any content from that article which might be lost. Chrisrus (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to do this but I don't think it is appropriate because Magneto (power generation) is a particular type of magneto, like ignition magneto and telephone magneto. Biscuittin (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think renaming is an acceptable thing to do at this point. By the way, I don't think deleting is constructive in anyway in this case. Z22 (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a rename I felt was necessary, but as noted above it's a reasonable form of name so no objections from me. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Biscuittin (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Lots of updating needed!
A significant part of the article was written before the advent of NdFeB magnets and high-flux multipolar hollow cylindrical rotor magnets, which are found inside inexpensive alternators in today's handcrank-rechargeable flashlights (torches). One paragraph suggests the future. That future is here.

I.m.h.o., the term "magneto" is unknown to the general public. I'd say it's obsolescent, Continued historical usage for ignition (probably historic) and historic telephones seems appropriate. "PM alternator", when distinction is needed, should suffice. Modern road vehicles use p.m. alternators with built-in rectifiers. Dare say that extremely few people would call those magnetos.

Regarding exactness of popular terminology, even a news story about Solar Impulse, iirc, with its onboard batteries for night flight, has an illustration with a callout referring to its "engines", a usage that looks distressingly bizarre. Nikevich 02:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "the term "magneto" is unknown to the general public. I'd say it's obsolescent,"
 * Indeed. So are you suggesting that WP shouldn't cover it? Or that coverage of those rare things, obsolescent magnetos used for large-scale power generation, should be covered here, out of the way (per WP:UNDUE) of articles on modern techniques?
 * As to " Modern road vehicles use p.m. alternators with built-in rectifiers.", you will of course have a source for that? Wind turbines are using them, because they use either very little control electronics (rectifiers to over-sized battery banks) or a lot of control electronics (grid-tied inverters). It's a useful simplification to go for a permanent magnet field. However cars need only a moderate amount of electronics as they're rectified to a small battery - thus voltage control by control of a field winding is still the popular approach. Permanent magnets are making inroads for car starter motors, but not their alternators.  Andy Dingley (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)