piedalu wrote:
...
However in an alternator under load, we have, the absorbed power (Pa) opposes the total losses (Pt) and the armature reactance which is the equivalent of the power used (Pu).
Pa = Pu + Pt
At the same time, if the armature reactance (Pr) is equal to (Pu) at near losses; the equation must be written: Pa = Pu + Pt + Pr
This is correct because an induced magnetic reactance is expressed in reactive volts amps (VAR) and its existence requires no energy expenditure.
However the manifestation of the armature reactance is indeed the energy of the antagonistic couple (Pr) opposite to the power absorbed on the axis of the alternator.
I do not think that the useful power can be simultaneously captured on the side of use and captured on the side of the alternator to oppose the engine torque. Because in this case we would have the equation: Pa = 2Pu + Pt and the principle of lapsed thermodynamics.
So, the paradox of physics?
Have we long had effective surunity in front of us?
From what corner of physics, the antagonistic couple of the armature reactance draws you their energy. Because its origin which is the reactance of armature apparently does not require any energy to exist?
What I wrote, is seen by the current use of alternators. So there must be the principle of thermodynamics on the one hand and something else, but what?
Above all, you should not talk about things that you clearly don't understand.