AC/DC: Revolutions

     Electric and magnetic phenomena have been observed for well over 2000 years. In ancient Greece, it was discovered that rubbing cat fur on amber would allow someone to pick up feathers without actually contacting them with the piece of amber. As well, a mineral was discovered in an area of Greece called Magnesia that contains Fe₃O₄, magnetite—a naturally occurring magnetic material. The object of much of our fascination and discovery for the past few centuries especially, what is now known as electromagnetism has become the cornerstone of modern civilization. Nearly every facet of our lives is now dependent upon the perpetual production and transfer of electrical power. TVs, radios, computers, traffic lights, toasters, microwaves, and all of the other conveniences we effortlessly plug into an outlet to use function according to a myriad of insights gained through experimentation conducted mostly in the past four centuries. Fermat, Franklin, Watson, Lagrange, Cavendish, Coulomb, Volta, Biot & Savart, Faraday, Gauss, Oersted, Ampere, Maxwell, Tesla, and many others made incredibly impactful contributions to humankind’s understanding of this most intriguing phenomenon. However, credit for popularizing induction motors and the long-distance transfer of power goes to Nikola Tesla.

            Nikola Tesla was born in 1856 in Smiljan, Croatia. After studying physics and math at the Technical University of Graz and philosophy at the University of Prague, Tesla had a vision in 1882 for a new, brushless design for an AC (alternating current) motor. Over the course of the next few decades, that vision essentially developed the precursor to our modern electrical grid. In fact, in 1895—the same year his lab in New York burnt down—with the financial backing of George Westinghouse, Tesla and General Electric installed AC generators at Niagara Falls. After many years of debating Thomas Edison, who championed DC (direct current) transmission as the future, it became apparent that alternating current was the superior technology for long-distance transmission. So, in honor of Nikola Tesla, this paper will contrast DC generators with AC generators. Power factor calculation will also be highlighted.

            Electric generators and motors operate according to principles outlined in Faraday’s Law. Faraday’s Law summarizes the ways in which an electromotive force (emf) may be generated by changes in a magnetic environment. That is, Faraday’s Law basically states that for a coil of wire, any changes in the magnetic environment will induce a voltage (emf) in that coil.

            Essentially, the first form is called the differential form while the second is called the integral form. Faraday’s Law is simplified for understanding generators and motors with multiple loops by the following equation, where N is the number of turns:

            This particular statement of Faraday’s Law highlights a direct proportionality between the number of turns of the coil and the magnitude of the induced emf; i.e., the more turns there are in the coil, the higher the induced emf. There are limitations, however; some of which will be discussed below. So, what is a generator?

A generator is simply a device that converts mechanical energy into electrical energy. It consists of a ferrous frame, called the stator, pole pieces, wound with wire in opposite directions, and the armature, also known as the core, which is the rotating part. The armature is made of many thin strips of an iron-silicon based material, called laminations, that are typically laser cut or die punched, then stacked together and fixed by a shaft through the center of the stack. Around the ridges of the laminations, copper wire is wound in specific patterns a specific number of times. Essentially, the number depends on the permeability of the stator, i.e. that is, the ease with which a ferrous metal can be magnetized, as well as the saturation point of the pole pieces, i.e. the maximum flux density of the pole pieces. At one end of the armature there is attached to the shaft a piece called the commutator. The purpose of the commutator is to provide a path to extract the induced voltage as the armature rotates through the magnetic field. It is made by attaching evenly alternating conductors and insulators to the shaft and connecting one end of one of the windings to one of the conductors and connecting the other end of that same winding to the conductor on the opposite side of the shaft. This process is repeated until all of the opposite conductors are attached in the same manner to a single winding.

            The pole pieces are also made of high permeability ferrous material and are wound many times with thin copper wire. This winding is called the shunt field and produces the main magnetic field through which the armature spins. If self-excited, the pole windings are wired in parallel with the carbon-based brushes that contact the commutator which means that the output will vary greatly with varying speeds as well as changing load. (The brushes are made of carbon because it is very slick and resistance decreases as temperature increases.) If separately-excited, the shunt field is instead connected to a field supply with a field adjust (typically a variable resistor) and provides much better control. In essence, the strength of the shunt field depends upon something called amp-turns. Amp-turns refer to the amount of current put through a conductor coiled a number of times. Low currents produce low flux density while high currents produce high flux density. Saturation occurs as the output voltage tapers off when graphed with field amps on the x-axis and output voltage on the y-axis. The relationship is linear at first but tapers off as the pole pieces reach a point where the inherent molecular properties of the material, along with their limited spatial dimensions, prohibit any more field lines, and thus flux, from being produced. As loads are added to the generator, this flux tends to become distorted. This is called armature reaction and is remedied by adding smaller interpoles between the main poles that are wired in series with the armature circuit.

            Now that a basic understanding of how a DC generator operates has been established, AC generators will now be examined. The main difference between AC and DC generators is that instead of implementing the split ring design of the commutator, as outlined above, AC generators are wired with each end of a loop connected to a separate slip ring. It is across and because of the separation of these slip rings that the sinusoidal, alternating voltage, and thus alternating current, are extracted using carbon-based brushes. Another crucial difference is that as you add more loops in an AC generator, they must be separated by particular angles. For example, in a typical single phase generator, there is a single sinusoidal voltage and current, i.e. positive to negative to positive to negative and so on, because there is a single coil of wire. Two phase generators have two coils that are perpendicular to each other which means two sinusoidal voltages/currents will be 90 degrees out of phase when graphed. Although many more types of polyphase generators exist, such as six phase, perhaps the most common are three phase generators.

            Three phase generators have a high efficiency in changing mechanical energy into electrical energy due to a continuous field flux. This is because of the Y-configuration of the coils in the generator. These coils are 120 degrees apart from each other. Each sinusoidal wave will be 120 degrees out of phase and generated at a rate of 60 Hz. As a result, the voltage is never 0. Hence, current is never 0. Therefore, there is relatively little energy lost through the process of converting the mechanical energy to electrical energy. As long as the load is balanced, each phase will deliver the same power. With the Y-configuration, if a voltmeter is placed across any phase to neutral, it will read 120V.

            Once the alternating voltage is produced with the AC generator, transformers are used to step up and step down the voltage for long distance transmission. Sending large currents over long distance is highly impractical because of the size of wire required. By stepping up the voltage, current is reduced in order to maintain the same power consequently requiring smaller gauge wire:

P = IV

            Typically, from the power station, the voltage is stepped up to around 345,000 V; sometimes to over 700,000 V. Once reaching the substation near the destination city or town, the voltage is stepped down to around 7,200 V and sent on to houses and businesses. Still other transformers, the ones at the top of a lot of the poles along almost every street around, step the voltage down once more to, 240 V, 120 V, or some combination of both, and then connect to residences and commercial buildings. Alas! A switch is flipped and lights come on. Well, it’s not quite that simple!

            When power companies transmit energy over long distances, there are many varying loads along the way which, as alluded to above, will affect the output voltage of the generators.  So, how do they maintain proper voltage output and thus keep the lights on without noticeably flickering? Well, the voltage output from the power company is essentially constant, so it’s really up to the customers drawing large amounts of power, such as commercial facilities that have many electric motors running to not waste power. The short answer is that phasors are used. No, not like the ones from Star Trek; those are phasers. Phasor diagrams are graphical representations of impedance caused by capacitors and inductors in a circuit. Impedance, Z, is anything that resists or impedes current.

            If a graph is made with the x-axis labeled real resistance and the y-axis labeled as an imaginary axis, +j and –j, the above equation will become much clearer. Essentially, this equation is saying that impedance is equal to the algebraic sum of the resistance, R, the capacitive reactance, X_C, and the inductive reactance, X_L. Inductive reactance is situated in the first quadrant while capacitive reactance is in the fourth quadrant. There is an interesting interplay between all of these quantities that ultimately are calculated as real or true power, i.e. the power across the resistor that is the only kind doing work, apparent power, i.e. the power across the inductor or inductors, and reactive power, i.e. the power across a capacitor bank. It is on the careful, dynamic balance of these three quantities that the companies rely to maximize the real power extracted. The goal is to maintain a power factor at or at least close to 1. In other words, as loads change in the facility, capacitor banks are used to balance the reactive and apparent power along the real power line. Since resistive power is the only power doing work, it is the only type that is useful; the others are basically a waste. Therefore, it is important for high energy consumers to constantly monitor the changes in capacitive and inductive reactance in order to reduce waste of the transmitted power; something that would surely make Tesla proud.

            Nikola Tesla lived to see a large portion of his work implemented in society. But, he didn’t do any of it for the money. In fact, he died alone and broke in his suite at the New Yorker Hotel in January of 1943. Instead, Nikola Tesla wanted to power the world for free. He even designed the system that could do it. The breadth of his accomplishments stands as a testament to the power of creative, visionary minds the world over. Tesla’s dedication in the face of adversity and unparalleled innovative skills have inspired countless scientists and engineers since his death. And, it is doubtless that he will continue to inspire generations to come.

In a society that operates almost entirely dependent upon science and technology, it is up to the scientists and engineers to recognize the necessity to examine other methods of social organization and not just focus on churning out more and more advanced technology that fewer and fewer people understand. Why should the idea of allowing those in society that have no clue how a certain piece of technology even works and that typically only have financial motivations dictate the development of such technology? It seems inexcusable to have virtually no one in the scientific community step up and ask the question, “Do we have the resources and the technical know-how?”, instead of, “Do we have the money?” And, it’s a bit strange that a lot of scientists seem to have no problem at all working on weapons of death and destruction. For humans, it’s totally reasonable to, as if by some banking miracle, find the money to bring together 130,000 scientists to develop one of the most unimaginably destructive devices known. But, try to find the money to bring together 130,000 scientists to develop a globally synergistic production and distribution system to provide the basic necessities for every human on the planet and prepare to revel in the glory of being called a socialist, a quack, an idealist, a utopian, or any number of other disparaging, rather unscientific pejoratives. What an absolute travesty! That mindset flies in the face of Tesla and the others that have contributed massively to scientific revolutions in our society by stepping outside of the boundaries of the norm. It turns out that just because a lot of people agree that a certain idea is infallible does not automatically make that idea correct or accurate. In the words of industrial designer and social engineer, Jacque Fresco, “Everyone once believed Earth was flat, but that didn’t make it so.”

Quaestio 3.0: On Aristotle's Function Argument

In his Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle spends the first 9 chapters examining what “the ethical life” is and how to attain it. But, in the final chapter he simply states that the happy life is “the contemplative life”. So, there is a long train of thought that culminates in explaining what the function of a human being is and claiming that “the good” resides in it. Furthermore, he puts forth an elaborate, somewhat compelling, teleological argument that basically states if the happiest lives non-gods can attain is that which approximates the gods’ lives (the happiest life), and if our only similarity to gods is our ability to contemplate, then the most contemplative humans will live the happiest lives. This argument, while undoubtedly compelling and possibly convincing in ancient times, simply breaks down with modern information in psychology, neuroscience, and similar fields.

            For centuries, the Function Argument has been one of the most hotly debated ideas in philosophy. In essence, Aristotle develops the idea that humans have a particular function. And, it is within this function that the “good” resides in accordance with virtue. By virtue, Aristotle means a quality that makes one good at performing one’s function. As well, he narrows human function down to three possibilities: 1. the life of nutrition and growth; 2. the life of perception; and, 3. the active life of the element that has a rational principle. After ruling out the first two, he settles on the third as being peculiar to human beings. Essentially, this argument seems to be teleological in that it establishes a baseline for human function as being that which most closely approximates the lives of the gods. Moreover, the language used by Aristotle leads to ambiguity when defining the term function; i.e., it is often conflated with purpose. And, while it may be commonplace to synonymously interpret these terms, it is actually upon these subtle differences that Aristotle’s argument rests. In other words, describing an object’s function, i.e., how something does what it does, is much different than describing its purpose, i.e., what it does. Aristotle essentially spends the first nine chapters of the book fleshing out dismissals of popular conceptions of happiness, elaborate descriptions of human function, and explanations on why human function is important to our sense of moral virtue, only to, almost nonchalantly, wave his hand at all of it in chapter 10 by simply exclaiming that the happy life is “the contemplative life”. What makes the Function Argument itself so appealing to humans, however, is that it attempts not only to define our function but also to separate our function from that of all other forms of life that we know of by saying that it is through our rational activity, i.e., how we do what we do, that we are unique. Hence, the debate continues. So, how does the Function Argument hold up to scrutiny when compared to popular conceptions of happiness?

            One might claim that gaining a lot of money can lead to happiness. For instance, in at least the case of winning the lottery, by Aristotle’s standards the basic supposition is that one is acting in accordance with some rational principle. However, the odds are well known to be stacked so far against an individual as to be almost frivolous. Yet, millions of people still play—some even becoming so entranced by the delusion of the prospect of winning that they can be considered addicted, sometimes selling their houses and cars for it. But, there is no doubt that if they do win, they will be happy. For, they will have access to all of the things they believe will make them happy, even if it is temporary. So, are we to suppose that the purpose of a human being is to try to win and that the function is to try to win well? Is that rational?

            Happiness, another might argue, is doing what one loves to do. If one finds ultimate joy in knitting scarfs, but their scarfs are sights of horror to most in society, then, by the Function Argument, that person is not fulfilling their function since they did not knit the scarfs well. But, this is plainly ridiculous by the fact that they are happy irrespective of other people’s opinions. In fact, the knitter likely doesn’t even care about what their presupposed function is. And, it doesn’t matter whether people do like their scarfs; they are happy in any case when knitting them. In other words, the assumed function—to perform the purpose, in this case knitting, well—is irrelevant when determining happiness.

            Still others may offer the idea that the only way one might gain happiness is through their acceptance by others. For example, a guitar virtuoso obviously performs in an almost unparalleled manner; i.e., he plays the guitar well. However, if people ignore him, he may feel distanced, alone, and perhaps even depressed. Despite how well he plays the guitar, in itself, it does not equal happiness for him. Instead, it is only through others listening to his playing, buying his albums, and frequenting his shows, i.e., through their acceptance, that he feels happiness. So, is it reasonable to claim that being accepted well is how this virtuoso fulfills his function? Of course not! That would imply that his purpose is to be accepted by others. And, this leaves a rather large gap in the logic utilized here; i.e., what if he kills someone? Is it still his purpose to be accepted by others? Considering that neither is his function of playing guitar well conducive to happiness, it is obvious that the Function Argument isn’t justified here.

            The Function Argument, as Aristotle explains it, is fundamentally dependent upon his idea of virtues and how they essentially consist in the rational activity mentioned before. Admittedly, within the framework of Aristotle’s way of viewing virtues, purpose, and function, his Function Argument seems to be applicable in a number of circumstances. However, the entire argument obviously assumes that human beings have a purpose or a function. But, there is nothing in nature that indicates humans have to have a purpose or a function; nor is there a wholly objective scale with which we can compare semantically ambiguous, relative, descriptive terminology, such as how well something is done by someone, effectively rendering the argument itself obsolete.

            In terms of the former, humans have a knack for assigning purpose and function to practically everything. But, is that prudent? For example, many ancient societies attributed lightning to gods. We now understand electromagnetism quite well and realize that such notions are antiquated and unnecessary. In other words, gods smiting humans with lightning may have been compelling in ancient times, but nowadays it is a well understood phenomenon and we don’t need quaint, fear-mongering stories to explain it. Another example is if we say that the purpose of a human is to live and the function of a human is to live happily, how do we justify billions of people around the planet living in abject poverty? Do we simply repeat the age old adage that ignorance is bliss? I say no. This is a sad copout of a supposedly intelligent species. Clearly, the socioeconomic paradigm that perpetuates this poverty barely allows these people to even live; let alone live well. So, happiness is a rather difficult idea to define if our notions regarding it can be imposed upon us without understanding our capacity both for it and to understand different perspectives of it. In terms of economics, as another example I will ask: what is the purpose of an economic system? And, does our economic model fulfill that purpose well?

            The term economy comes from the ancient Greek word oikonomos, which translates to “household management”. So, it would be reasonable to claim that the purpose of an economy is to manage a household, and its function is to do it well. But, what is our household? Earth, of course! We tend to disregard the fact that Earth is essentially a closed, finite, interdependent system but it is, nevertheless, our household. None of the borders that we see drawn on typically disproportionate maps, i.e. maps that show Africa much smaller than it actually is in relation with the other land masses, actually exist. Nature doesn’t care that we tell ourselves that our separate countries have meaning because in the grand scheme, they simply do not. So, do we even manage the household? Well, sort of.

            We have a giant machine churning out economic slaves of easily manipulated opinions so everything seems fine and dandy to a vast majority of people. We have transportation infrastructure, we can fly around the world, we can flip a switch and instantly illuminate an entire room, we can sit in front of a computer and access the entirety of humankind’s knowledgebase; but, we also destroy the very environment which we are dependent upon. We dump toxic waste into fresh water supplies, we burn fossil fuels which release millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that sustains us, we kill other species en masse for fun and call it sport; we have successfully accelerated the natural warming/cooling cycle of the planet yet continue to passively elect cretins that have no problem using the fruits of science but deny its efficacy every chance they get. Surely, the hypocrisy is blatantly obvious here. But, the rest of the population is so distracted with and bogged down by the notion that we have to have money, that the system continues unabated and unquestioned. Again, does it work? Yes; but only if you are “lucky” enough to be born into a modern industrialized nation. If you are not born into such a country, then there is a word to describe such relatively unfortunate circumstances: fucked.

And what about the function of an economy; i.e. Does our economic model perform its function of managing a household well? Absolutely not! Nature is the only dictatorship and it doesn’t care what we think, believe in, or speculate on. Therefore, the only way to manage our household, Earth, well is to learn about nature and align with its natural processes. Anything less will simply be a cycle of the same exploitative, destructive methods that have been employed for far too long.

            Regarding money, the current socioeconomic paradigm is inextricably interlinked with a monetary/market system that almost no one bothers to learn about. Instead, we are forced into believing that we need money. Never mind where it comes from, what it represents, or whether it’s even relevant in our digital age. We are told that all we need to know is that we need money. Thus, the edifice of all of our wants and the rest of our needs becomes a direct outgrowth of this indoctrinated, unsubstantiated claim; i.e., our wants, needs, and conceptions of happiness are artificially imposed. And this unfortunately continues mostly without question and with total obedience. So, can we really claim that when happenstance bestows a large sum of money upon someone that it automatically means they will be happy because they can go out and buy all of the crap that they have been bombarded with their entire lives by advertising agencies telling them that their life sucks unless they buy the latest, greatest whatever? How could it possibly be considered rational to partake in something so unreasonably, yet obviously, unfair?

            It seems reasonable at first to concede that doing what one loves undoubtedly leads to one’s happiness. However, a number of flaws become apparent when examining this claim, two of which will be outlined here. First, what if, as was the case with the lottery winner and perhaps all of society, the conceptions of what one loves as well as what one deems “happiness” have been imposed upon them? In other words, how is one supposed to know, say, without having experienced much in life, that what they view as love and happiness is accurate or objectively (that is, being as objective as we are capable of being) correct? Secondly, and this hinges on the first, what if someone loves to kill and eat babies, as Albert Fish once did?

            Finally, gaining happiness through the acceptance of others is essentially the same thing as having the concept of happiness imposed. But, this time one is actively seeking this type of imposition outright which seems to indicate they have lost any semblance of self-worth. In other words, they feel as though there is no possible way to bring into fruition self-induced happiness. So, what this amounts to is artificial, presupposed conceptions of happiness being readily accepted from others without question. But, when the fans leave, as in the case of the virtuoso, the happiness leaves with them. And so, he fails to recognize that the most powerful resource on the planet also happens to be the only thing conducive to true happiness—his own mind.

            In closing, Aristotle was undoubtedly an incredible thinker. His Function Argument stands as a testament to how well-reasoned ideas are timeless. There is a reason that not only Aristotle, but many other ancient philosophers are still heavily emphasized in ethics today. (Of course, I recognize that the former statement can be construed to nullify my entire argument about purpose and function, but I’m going to wave my hand at that for the following punchline.) It shows how no matter where we are from, or even what era we are from, humans are far more similar than different. We tend to look back at ancient civilizations, using words such as primitive to describe them, and present arguments for how civilized we have become. Lest we forget that although ancient Egyptians built some of the most amazing architectural marvels in humankind’s history, they too worshipped cats—just as we are doing today.