Talk:Rotating magnetic field/Archive 1

I think this should stay separate to dynamo theory. The rotating magnetic field model is a separate concept. It is larger and more encompassing. It should have its own article. -- Tim Starling 16:22 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * It's the same thing though. The rotating magnetic field model is NOT a separate concept. More precisely ... The 'dynamo theory' is based off of the dynamo. The process is a form of the induction motor. A Dynamo functions by the rotating magnetic field. [see wikilinks]


 * I'd be more than happy to include the DT here or include the RMF there.


 * This is a slightly larger and more encompassing ... and abit more literal way to express the framework of thought, so inclusion here would be ok too. I was considering putting in a quark vortex thing in too [as quarks are rotating magnetic field from my understanding ... the up and down spins and such]


 * Dynamo theory is, according to our article, a model of how the Earth's magnetic field is generated. Perhaps you have some other definition for it. But I'm pretty sure the definition in the current article is the most widely known. The rotating magnetic field model on the other hand, is not limited to the generation of the Earth's magnetic field alone. In fact (according to plasma cosmology) rotating magnetic fields produced the universe observed today. So one is geology and one is pure physics. I would call that different.


 * If you do have a different definition and you want to discuss it, perhaps you can tack it on to the end of dynamo theory, like what's done at torque. -- Tim Starling 17:10 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Dynamo theory is a model of how the Earth's magnetic field is generated.


 * I don't hava another definition for it, other than what it is. The rotating magnetic field model is not limited to the generation of the Earth's magnetic field alone, BUT the  The rotating magnetic field model is the exact framework of how the generation of the Earth's magnetic field occurs.


 * And yes rotating magnetic fields produced the universe observed today. Now the division you cite does not exist ... it's applicable to both geology and physics. The DT is a specific example of the RMF. The RMF is a more abstract framework.


 * I don't have a different definition [see above].


 * Perhaps I will tack on to the end of dynamo theory a note about the RMF.


 * reddi 00:52 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

My attitude towards the rotating magnetic field model has changed somewhat since my last talk page comments.

Rotating magnetic fields have nothing to do with the Earth's magnetic field, because the Earth's magnetic field does not rotate. A dynamo consists of a permanent magnet attached to a rotor. The magnet rotates. Hence it has a rotating magnetic field. The earth has a current of charged material moving in a ring. This produces a magnetic field which is very close to static. There is no rotation, just a little bit of drift and the occasional pole reversal. -- Tim Starling 03:02 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * 1st ... you musta saw that i didn't delete you intro [had a change o' mind on that i see] ... I just dropped it down a bit.


 * Now as to your attitude towards the rotating magnetic field model changing somewhat since your last talk page comments.


 * Rotating magnetic fields have everything to do with the Earth's magnetic field, because the Earth's magnetic field does rotate [at the speed of light or @ the maximum speed of the medium they are in]. A dynamo consists of a permanent magnet attached to a rotor [this is the earth's core]. The magnet rotates. Hence it has a rotating magnetic field. [BTW, the stator is the stationary part ... and it's the outside space around the earth].


 * The earth has a very fast magnetic field moving in a ring. The current [or electrical part] is nearly static [and of lesser magnitude (except in the solid part [see telluric currents]). There is rotation, the magnetic forces (not electrical forces) are alternating back and forth from pole to pole, and occasionally there is a pole reversal [but that is a different tiopic]. -- reddi 03:57 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * [PS. Oh ... you musta missed it ... i thought that you saw that i did not delete you addition, I am trying to add thing and not remove them .... it was there ... but you need to read the article to see it .... .... I see what read better and remove one or the other ... reddi 04:03 26 Jul 2003 (UTC) ]


 * What are you talking about? The magnetic field doesn't rotate, it's static. It goes from south to north. That's why compasses work. If the magnetic field rotates as you say, I should be able to pick up an RF signal from it, with a coil of wire and an oscilloscope. Hang on, I'll get my radio. What frequency is it on? -- Tim Starling 04:12 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * What are I'm I talking about? What are you talking about?


 * The magnetic field alternate and rotate. It goes from south to north. THIS movement is the rotation of the field. It's rotating back and forth ... from the south pole to the north and back again. That's why compasses work.


 * The magnetic field rotates and, yes, you can recieve a RF signal from it. Look up extremely low frequency research [I thought I have told you about it before ... but mabey you haven't look @ it]. With a coil of wire and an oscilloscope, ppl that really research this stuff do pick it up ....


 * ... and OK ... get your radio, but you'll need a special one (your normal one won't do ... it's pretty much worthless concerning this). What frequency is it on? it's on the 6 hz band [NOT kilohertz, just hertz] -- reddi 04:27 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Okay, listen. I want you to go away and come back when you know some basic electromagnetism. Here are a few good sites to get you started:
 * http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magcon.html
 * http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html
 * http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/curloo.html
 * Very cool Java applet: http://www.walter-fendt.de/ph11e/mfwire.htm


 * It has often been said that you don't really understand something unless you can do it yourself. Have a go at some of these:
 * http://www.kwantlen.bc.ca/~mikec/P2420_Problems/Biot-Savart/P2420_13_Biot-Savart.htm


 * -- Tim Starling 05:22 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Mmmm ... no. Please don't be asinine. I know basic electromagnetism.


 * Why don't you go away and come back when you know some basic geomagnetism?


 * Here's some sites to get you started:
 * http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/space/mag_field.html [notice the pretty animated rotating field graphic]
 * http://www.shef.ac.uk/~sparc/tutorial.html
 * http://www.exploratorium.edu/learning_studio/auroras/happen.html
 * http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magearth.html#c1
 * http://www.psc.edu/science/Glatzmaier/glatzmaier.html
 * http://www.physicscentral.com/action/action-02-4.html


 * [snip flawed 'do it yourself' models for the earth]


 * -- reddi 05:41 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * "I know basic electromagnetism."

No you don't.


 * "http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/space/mag_field.html [notice the pretty animated rotating field graphic]"

That's not a rotating magnetic field. That's a static magnetic field.

Okay, I've skimmed through the rest. Ask me a question. Here, I'll ask you one. Calculate the magnetic field at an arbitrary point P, in the presence of a thin wire of length L, which is carrying a current I.

* P

I -> --

|<---   L   --->|

-- Tim Starling 06:16 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * The field is traversing [ala. moving back and forth] between the poles [inside the magnet and outside the magnet] ... but it's static? right ... whatever ...


 * Calculate B. -- Tim Starling 07:50 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I already know that you don't know about telluric currents, the schumann resonance, nor extremely low frequencies .... so I don't really need to ask u questions ....


 * That's not fair, those things weren't in the links you gave me. :( Ask me about the various layers of the ionosphere. :) -- Tim Starling 07:50 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * I really don't need to prove myself to you [and I'm not going to] ... believe what you want of me [if that make you feel better about yourself] ... make little difference to me ... I'm just gonna try to keep addin content and information to wikipedia ... reddi 07:31 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * You're adding incorrect information. What am I meant to do? I gave you references, but you refuse to read them. I guess I'll just have to explain the whole thing to you right here. It will take time, but I don't see that you've given me any other choice. I could list you on problem users and start reverting your material on sight, but that's not very good PR. And I'm not sure which approach will take more of my time. -- Tim Starling 07:50 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * One strategy that I've found useful in situations like this is when someone works on article A, I modify article B. When they work on article B, I work on article A.  -- Roadrunner

A magnetic field is described by a vector field B. At each point in space (and time), B is a vector with a particular value. For example, it may be that with some particular coordinate system, in a particular situation, B(i + 2j + 3k) = i - j. Are you with me? Do you want me to explain what i, j and k are? -- Tim Starling 07:57 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla ... reddi 10:53 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"You may always depend on it that algebra, which cannot be translated into good English and sound common sense, is bad algebra" - William Kingdon Clifford ... reddi 10:57 26 Jul 2003 (UTC) more later .... mabey


 * So you don't want to know? Are you sure? -- Tim Starling 11:54 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This whole article is a bit silly. Do we need articles on rotating X for every X? The information relating rotating fields with motors, etcetera, should go on the pages for the motors, etc. It's not like rotating magnetic fields, by themselves, involve any profound new physics or phenomena (despite what the Tesla hagiographer implies), nor is it a special technical term. You're not likely to find an separate entry on them in the index of any electromagnetism book (I just checked half a dozen). Steven G. Johnson


 * Redirect to magnetic field? -- Tim Starling 01:58 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Merging is probably the right thing to do. In any case, the magnetic field article needs some information about how magnets are affected by it and how it can be exploited in dynamos and electric motors. I don't have the time, so someone else will have to do it.


 * This topic is silly because there is nothing special about rotating magnetic fields, as opposed to the broader category of changing magnetic fields, for the purpose of producing an electromotive force. -- CYD


 * This article is here because Reddi thinks this is a picture of a rotating magnetic field. -- Tim Starling 03:30 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

See User:Tim Starling/Reddi watchlist for a list of Reddi-related articles

--- Redirect ---

There is nothing special about a rotating magnetic field. So I'll redirect this to magnetic field.Salsb 7 July 2005 19:15 (UTC)