![]() | This redirect is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | The contents of the Magneto (power generation) page were merged into Magneto on 13 September 2017 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
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)
![]() | This article needs attention from an expert in electrical engineering. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. |
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)
What is the difference between a Magneto and a magneto (generator)? Chrisrus ( talk) 19:13, 12 September 2012 (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)
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)
The merge dispute is under discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Biscuittin ( talk) 19:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
? Chrisrus ( talk) 13:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)"...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 have used Wikipedia: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)
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)
![]() | This redirect is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | The contents of the Magneto (power generation) page were merged into Magneto on 13 September 2017 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
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)
![]() | This article needs attention from an expert in electrical engineering. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. |
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)
What is the difference between a Magneto and a magneto (generator)? Chrisrus ( talk) 19:13, 12 September 2012 (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)
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)
The merge dispute is under discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Biscuittin ( talk) 19:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
? Chrisrus ( talk) 13:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)"...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 have used Wikipedia: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)
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)