Some distinctions between single phase and polyphase; "If the load on each phase of a polyphase source is identical, the instantaneous power output of the alternator is constant." HW Jackson As we can imagine then for a single phase application we arrive at the situation where the instantaneous power out from a single phase is NOT constant, and actually crosses a zero input at twice the frequency. Therefore any magnetic fields in expression appear to expand and collapse in space through the polarity change, and the magnetic field is not constantly present in time. To create the effect of a "rotating magnetic field" as is present in polyphase motors the magnetic field must be constantly present in time,also appearing to rotate in space which is satisfied by the proper placement of off phased coils.
A single phased source can be given different reactive loads to mimic this requirement, that a magnetic field be continually present in time, and also appear in a different location corresponding to the rotation. A mental model can be made for the requirements using 4 large air core induction coils, where we will assume these coils operate in pairs to mimic a polyphasing at 90 degrees. The large induction coils I have experimented with can be used for an example, as they are 20,000 winds and have been used in experimental air core magnet motors, rotating a 50 lb magnet structure 400 rpm. In this analogy a real model is necessary so that a known Q factor can be cited for the operating coils, so that a efficiency comparisons between a "mimiced" 2 phase system, and a hypothetical actual 2 phase system can be compared. In this situation then, the coils have a operating Q factor of 15: which means that when series resonated at 60 hz, there will be a 15 fold internal rise of voltage with respect to the input, so as to enable 15 times more current then its measured reactive current: to conduct through the coil to produce the magnetic field which for series resonance is almost perfectly phased at near zero degrees with respect to the source voltage. This begins quadrant ones magnetic field in rotation. When phase 1's magnetic field has collapsed to zero, phase two's magnetic field is at its fullest expression in time, and in this case an identical high induction coil can be used, where if the inductance is large, so that X(L)>> R, (15 for this example), this makes the phase angle of the the actual amperage vs voltage source near 90 degrees, thus also a corresponding magnetic field from the reactive coil appears timing wise in quadrant 2. However that current, as the reactive current will have 15 times less current, from the same voltage source powering both branches; thus 15 times less magnetic field then existed at the start in quadrant one, thus to produce a balanced magnetic field in rotation, in order to increase the AC current in phase two a 15 fold step up transformer would be needed, thus also ordinarily implying that the power requirements for that phase: for that phase to mimic the needed polyphase magnetic field rotation, would actually exceed what the phase would draw in quadrant 1, as the phase that was resonated. The efficiency comparisons are easily shown by the fact that the required voltage rise to establish a sufficient magnetic field are obtained for free in quadrant one, because of the series resonant rise of voltage, but in quadrant two it is paid for by an increased amperage consumption by the source to obtain the same voltage rise as what the q factor of the coil will dictate. If in fact we substituted a bonafide 90 degree off phased emf for the source of quadrant two's magnetic field, then it also could be series resonated and obtain the same efficiency found in quadrant one. Thus on first glance the mimiced polyphase system should be at least Q/2 less efficient then the actual polyphased system, for the given air core analogy. One may protest that since quadrant two consists of a transformer driving a large inductive load, that we could improve the efficiency of that branch by applying a power factor correction on the primary. But the doing of this should destroy the effect we are trying to similate, which is a rotating magnetic field. Applying that power factor correction to quandrant two should actually also change its phasing difference from the source voltage, so that making a power factor correction also reduces the original 90 degree phase angle difference, thus increasing the efficiency reduces the phase angle for the mimiced polyphase branch, which reduces the effect of a rotating magnetic field. HDN Postnote; Pending further experimentation a very remarkable thing should be explored. It would appear from investigations that using long columns of coils in (3 Phase)resonance so that the coil group lengths, even though they are arranged to be adjacent lines of coils which should only show mutual inductance from the adjacent pole endings; reactive mesurements show they have no measurable mutual inductance and also operate according to the 120 degree phased inputs, yet when two of these phases are resonated from 120 degree sourcings, they instead appear 180 degrees out of phase by both respective amperage and voltage measurements. It should be rediculous to assume that that if a third group of coils were to be added to the two, that three sets of 180 phase angles could be procurred. BUT, what if stopping resonant magnetic fields in rotation instead increases the time differential BETWEEN those phases. But the question remains, what WOULD OCCUR? I think this should be tried soon.... HDN Tesla Research Group; Pioneering the Applications of Interphasal Resonances http://groups.yahoo.com/group/teslafy/
