Ungrounded Lightning Rod,
I have thought about the vectors you speak of concerning the flux paths. The problem I saw with an alternating pole arrangement is that with an NSN on top of a SNS, you would have quite a few flux lines attempting to travel parallel to the vector of motion (tangential axis on the rotor)...
That close NS arrangement in the gap should be nice and strong, but if the poles have opposite poles adjacent to them, the lines will be drawn to them, and not only directly across the gap...
So if we think in terms of NsNs or SnSn, could not much of the "wild" flux find its way around the radial edge of the rotor to meet with its counterpart? It really is a question... just thinking out loud. Perhaps that is why we end up with a n pole and not a N pole.
Now... if we continue along that course... We may possibly even discover that NsNsNs has much bigger N's than does NSNSNS, because NSNSNS has a lot of flux drawn along the tangential axis of the rotor. Widen the gap, and this adverse effect (if, in fact, it is adverse) becomes even more observable I am assuming.
So, if my premises are correct, the tangential flux is essentially wasted in the NSNSNS arrangement, just as the "wild" flux is wasted in the NNNNNN arrangement. It is my hypothesis that the consequent pole arrangement will have a more sharply focused field in the gap, thus more (delta)B, hence more power. The wasted flux in one configuration or other may offset this balance. I don't know... But for some reason, I intuitively went with the consequent pole arrangement on a wooden rotor. Let the stones fly.
In a transformer the lines are moving because, when the primary current is rising, new circular lines are created in the primary coil wires and jump outward (through other primary and secondary coil wires) into the magnetic core material. Similarly, when the primary current is collapsing the magnetic field loops shrink and vanish into the wires, cutting through other wires as they go.
See... that is exactly the kind of thing I am trying to look at. The field is cutting in different directions as it shrinks and grows. I wish I knew what those directions were. I thought I did using the right-hand rule, but it seems that other factors are at play.
Sparweb,
I will check out the FAQ, and you are correct in assuming that flux linkage has escaped me for the time-being. Just from looking at your explanation of it, it is the concept involving a sort of saturation of usable flux in the field to coil relationship. I have not hammered out the figures yet, but I will try to. The formula looks simple until an integral gets thrown in there, with which I have had no experience. Yet I see that you have posted what seems to be a simplified version of the formula wiki has. F=BAN looks simple enough, so I will check into it. Thanks.
I understand EMF, but flux linkage is a new concept to me. I wish we hadn't jumped straight into digital in school, because it seems I missed a lot of AC concepts that should have been explained better.
Rossw,
I don't think thinking in this way actually helps your cause. Sticking with your "elastic, dragging the electrons along" for a moment - if you drag a magnet *along* the length of a wire, you get no output. Its when you cut *across* the wire you get output.
Yes, I did have the wrong vector there with the analogy, but the entire analogy was a bit flawed anyway.
I see now that it has nothing to do with north and south, which seems to be contradictory to Fleming's rule. I think the problem, as I have been saying, is that I am not seeing all the vectors of force and motion and how they relate to a coil's observation.
So... what I am essentially trying to grasp is--does the changing field produced by the relative motion actually change Fleming's north to south vector?
Oztules,
The boson, light speed explanation helps a bit. I have studied relativity, and thus now understand that the electrons don't "see" speed changes. Thus, even in an alternator, relative motion doesn't mean jack to a strand of wire... So, if motion is completely eliminated as a factor, that only leaves us with field intensity, its vector, and its change over time.
So are we aiming more at change to determine the direction current flow, or more at the field vector created by the change?