Why aren't magnet generators more mainstream?

All generators use magnets. Honda makes some good ones.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exchemist!

Please accept my apologies for botching a play on words (chemist=pharmacist)! I never for a moment intended to leave the impression that I was literally characterizing you as a pharmacist. That would never correlate with the many expert explanations you've posted in questions of math and science. So perish the thought! No, you are one of the handful of really solid posters who keep the cranks in checkmate. I'm certain I speak for the majority of readers who always want to hear what you have to say. (On top of that you have a remarkable knowledge of music literature and I'm sure that's just the tip of the iceberg.) Sorry.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No, leopold, the issue here was not whether there are more than one way to set a field in motion. The only question was whether the field must be set in motion relative to the conductor, as billvon originally stated and exchem, origin and dywyddyr immediately corroborated. And the second question was whether this is an arbitrary decision by the mainstream which was disproven, as we have now demonstrated that this is a fundamental law of nature (Ampere's Law) which is not subject to repeal. And the third issue, which I hoped to convince you of, is that expert opinion trumps lay opinion every time. After all of the discussion we've been through, I'm surprised you are still so phobic about professionalism in science. The rest of what you focused on, the semantics of generator/dynamo/alternator, etc., is irrelevant, since the professionals speak a more precise language, and you have to defer to their definitions. There is no indignity about accepting the advice of experts. It's generously given, with no strings attached. Plus it's free. The rest of us had to pay a small fortune to acquire that training. So you're welcome. :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you are a fraud bill, you knew EXACTLY what i was talking about all along.
says volumes about your integrity dude.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You argued that the conductor must be set in motion to generate electricity from a permanent magnet. We all corrected your misunderstanding and you held your ground.

At least it has now been settled that the field must move relative to the conductor.


Edit:
Given that you were in error, it does no good to alienate us by calling me a jerk and calling him a fraud. Just chalk it up as your mistaken impression of how nature works. Now you know, so mission accomplished. You're better informed than before. Celebrate that and forget the rest.


And thanks, billvon, exchemist, origin and dywyddyr. You guys rule. Cranks drool.

 

Like I said, in the future, especially in technical discussions, you should let us know when you're using different terms than everyone else. For example, if I started talking about changing electrical fields causing capacitive coupling, and kept referring to it as "magnetism" people would likely become confused - especially if I kept saying "no, magnetism means electric fields." It would make it difficult to have a conversation - as your last dozen or so posts demonstrate.

 

uh huh, sure it was:

 

Haha no sweat, I knew you didn't think I was really a pharmacist, but thought the subtlety might escape other readers, hence the short CV. Anyway, nothing wrong with being a pharmacist: some of my best friends are…….etc., etc.