Heh, I'm siding with OmniBot? Thanks for a good lough...

"It's just so utterly malicious it's reached a kind of art form."
You think so? 

Guess what... You do the "17*ou" miracle, clearly.. Even with the Fet's (they used to do it with the bipolar transistors like 2955/3055... In the old days. Surely, with a help of a "555"...) ...

And, I'll change my mind.
Fair?

Nevermind...

LOL.  It has been done VERY clearly.  But you're on Spinn.  We're getting this done on campus - so this time there'll hopefully - be ready acceptance.  God know's it's needed.

But I'm definitely on for it.  Just hope you'll tame that malice when we show all that evidence.     

Regards,
Rosemary

LOL.  It has been done VERY clearly.  But you're on Spinn.  We're getting this done on campus - so this time there'll hopefully - be ready acceptance.  God know's it's needed.

But I'm definitely on for it.  Just hope you'll tame that malice when we show all that evidence.     

Regards,
Rosemary

Ok, ok... Just show your "all that evidence" of yours...

Regards and Cheers,

spinner

@all

Have not fallen off of the edge of the world.. yet. :-) Just absent from my compy all day......

(Paul pulls out a radiation meter and checks the RADS.)

Nope, not WWIII yet, but you sure couldn't tell here.

--------------

I take it then Rosemary that you have achieved closer to COP=1 then was thought possible? KEWL.

Holding the data back for a patent or are you sharing? (If so, point the way towards more info. I'm interested. I only bite on odd Tuesdays.)

----------------

@ the "others" (don't have a clue whom all)

Have you tried replicating yet? This is a yes or no answer by the way.

If the answer is no, then I point out my first an second main posts on this topic. Critical thinking at this point would state that you object irrationally, and in an unscientific manner.

If yes, then did it work? Have you asked for comparison of the original circuit? Have you tried to simulate the environmental situation? All yes or no answers.....

These things are what a -->real<-- scientist would do.

If you have done them, then maybe whatever is behind your arguments, whatever they are have merit. If not, then you have no more room to claim science than some dude with a beer in his hand at a trailer park claiming to have talked with Elvis.

---------------------

@all

If this argument is to persist, please create a separate thread for it.

---------------------

@Loner

I really hope that I am not that bad... :-( I do like to discuss things in depth, and everyone that knows me would admit that I am not the greatest with tact. All too many time other presume I argue when in fact I am having in my mind an awesome and enjoyable conversation.....

Am I too blunt? I cannot work on what is not self-evident. If it is the manner in which my brain processes data, this I may have a hard time with. I am serious, be truthful, accurate, and verbose. I am not made of glass, and my skin is calloused.

I am not attempting to browbeat anyone with logic. Such is irrational, and illogical.

By the way, definitions are in part the problem. You are sharp as a carpet tack.

----------------

@all concerning the magnet....... :-)

Loner, I hate to drop this one on you, but I knew someone would post it. It was a setup from point one.

MECHANICAL work involves motion (as described by physics)

WORK as described by thermodynamics (the subset of physics whom is extremely relevant here), however, is the energy transferred from one system to another, and is characterized by external mechanical constraints. 

It was a setup as I knew it would be associated with Newtonian physical principles, as soon as "motion" was brought in.

By physics (thermodynamics), a magnet indeed does work, as defined by the pressure applied to the surface of either the papers ot the fridge itself by the magnetic energy applied.

(Loner, I feel sorrow as I already know you knew this, but it was slipping your mind. I apologize again.)

Look up "Work Thermodynamics" for those interested in more info.

--------------

@Loner

Considering the relativistic aspects, you are right as this was a slam dunk no matter which angle I intended to come from, but though I was tempted, I am glad I passed up said temptation. You could have then added jack to a well chosen three letter designation for what I would have qualified for as an appellation then.

I intended thermodynamic application as the violation of energy laws are from thermodynamics anyway, and it leaves less room for valid argument.

Paul Andrulis

Paul, in the hopes of getting this back on topic and abject apologies for that absurd diversion.

I get it that you consider a kind of 'motion' of the magnetic field - whether the magnet itself is moving or not.  Presumably then the flux is in motion?  I agree.  And I also agree that in as much as a magnet resists 'falling' from a fridge door - then it's definitely resisting the gravitational pull.  Since the gravitational pull is quantifiable, then presumably the amount of energy expended in resisting that pull equals or exceeds the force of gravity. That's surely quantifiable?

But when you talk about centrifugal force being the same as gravity - then I'm frankly lost.  I thought the centrifugal force inclines bodies to move outwards and away.  Where gravity - in contrast - pulls one inwards and towards.  What really puzzles me is that a rotating platform is proposed to be a possible 'artifiicial gravitational field' that would compensate for the required gravity on a space ship.  I can't get my head around it.  Unless the rotation is at some exotic axis to that artificial sense of 'ground' that's required.  In any event.  It's just one of many blind spots. 

I must say I've got my own take on the casimir effect which I also agree is a kind of magnetic flux - extraneous to the atom - that bonds atoms.  So.  I'm with you when you talk about atomic bonding.  It's just that I'm a bit pedantic and horribly simplistic.  So I actually envisage a kind of one on one field of flux particles that bind atoms together.  So.  Yes.  On this point I'm in absolute agreement - always assuming that we're talking about the same thing.  In effect the field would be actively holding or bonding with extraneous material - which is a kind of work.

And I'm not sure if we need acceleration to prove that work is being done.  Surely there's work in any self sustained orbit - such as our spin - or our orbit around the sun - or in the orbit of an electron - that you mentioned in your earlier post?  If it's moving surely that's proof of energy? - is what I think I'm trying to say.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Yes Rosemary, as Loner pointed out relativistically the magnet IS moving even though it is stationary in a particular frame of reference. "Frames of reference" are highly subjective in reality. I won't go too deep into this, but I shall think outside the box with you for a few minutes on this.

First of all forces are equivalent. Inertia and gravity for instance are considered "equivalent" as the differences between the two are indistinct and non-measurable. An object can be referred to as applying "pressure", when in fact it is applying "Negative pressure" or "pull". Yes, I was getting somewhat of loose with terms, but I was not desiring to appear anal, and the terns still apply.... practically speaking.

As far as the field itself "flowing", that should be self evident due to comparison to similar phenomena.

The main inexplicable (as in difficult to explain, not impossible) effect is that it chooses the path of least resistance in the exact same manner that electricity does while in motion. Most everything else has somewhat of a simple relegation towards a lack of flow as a static field. A static field is not moving or "flowing" therefore needs NO path whatsoever. More on this later.

Gravity, as a for instance does not care whether you are outside of a plane, or inside. It permeates and affects all things equally. When a plane is occupied, or a building, vehicle, or anything else, such concepts as resistance hold little meaning. The people in the plane experience the force of 1G  (equivalent inertial mass acceleration of 9.18 meters per sec  per sec).

Though you are sitting in the seat on said plane, you are experiencing the same acceleration applied by gravity, therefore you are compressing the seat material by the same equivalent force as acceleration. Applied force is the most basic possible definition of "work", which would be applicably definitive for all branches of science equally.

If the Newtonian ONLY definition of work were allowed, then heat would not do "work" by definition, nor would any pure energy concept of work be allowable under the constraints. Therefore, thermodynamics allows for the definition of work to be defined upon energy transference in a system. Otherwise, how would you determine the amount of work by say a light bulb? How about a laser beam? Strong or weak forces?

All these things do work, and it is amazing how selective people can be about to WHAT a definition is allowed to be applied based solely upon inference of the meaning of the outcome if permitted.

Such is the case of the magnet. If the rules allowed for other forms of energy are applied equally, then the magnet qualifies as doing work due to energy transferrence in the system.

ONLY if bias is shown, then a magnet does no work. Many may not like the statement or it's inherent implications, but it is true. Energy IS being transferred by a magnet attached to any magnetic material, or in the close presence of another magnet. The external effects ARE measurable not as POTENTIAL force or energy, but APPLIED force or energy. (In Newtonian terms kinetic energy not potential energy.)

A magnetic field is not potential or static unless it is isolated and not transferring energy to something else..   

This has no bearing upon the argument, as I do not include this as a postulate, and here is where I wander from the pack. I truly do not think a magnetic field IS static at all, but in in constant state of flow both within the magnet, and in space outside of the physical magnet body. Two possibilities come to mind, either a flow of photons or phonons, or a peculiar warpage of space. I state the second possibility as the formula for the strength of a "magnetic field" over distance share striking similarities with that for the strength of gravity.

Just a thought to make you go hmmmmm, but pure speculation and I put it forth as such...


Paul  Andrulis

Paul - I'm afraid that exnihiloest and others will continue to hijack your thread no matter your request that they desist.  Certainly as long as I post here. Your options are limited.  Either we need to ignore their posts.  I'm game if you are.  Or I'll retire and just enjoy reading your posts from a distance - so to speak.  Take your pick.

The unfortunate truth is that he and truthtotell are the worst kind of troll.  Unlike TK or even / spinn - the two of them are somewhat intellectually challenged.  So.  To ask them to post elsewhere carries the inevitable consequence of either not being able to read it or not being able to understand it.  And this last post of his seems to show a total inability to put a logical sentence together.  It seems that what he's tried to gain in innuendo and implication - he's rather lost in simply making any kind of sense at all.  Extraordinary.  The one is as verbose and obtuse as the other is terse and obtuse.  Either way?   

Anyway let me know what you want me to do.  I'll fall in.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

 

May I add - and since you asked.  The fact is that there is, indeed, a thesis that required OU - the experiment that proved the thesis - and finally a full blown replication that proved the experiment.

But inevitably with that much familiarity with the experiment - the replicator was duly tempted by it's desirability.  He, the replicator tried to snaffle claim to the experiment as his own discovery but to do this he needed to deny the existence of the thesis.  So.  It became an attempt at internet theft which was duly quashed by sundry checks and balances available within the internet itself.

But the trolls follow my every post - which makes it difficult for me.  They really need to interrupt me.  The more so as they need to silence any reference I may make to advance an understanding of my thesis.  This would be counter their very best interests to keep the facts from the reading public here.  The thesis may prove too powerful.  Certainly the results from the experiment fly in the face of standard theory.  Fortunately Harti knows this and has offered me moderator status on my own thread to prevent it being unduly 'clogged' with their nonsense.  But I have no protection outside that thread.  And these interruptions are the consequence. 

Not a happy situation.

Kindest again,
Rosemary   

Loner,  Just a quick point here

Prime example, does Gravity do work to a non-moving object?  I can answer that one without a doubt.  Of course not.....  (Motion being defined here as relative to the center of gravity of the implied object/field.  I don't think I need to say more.)

If gravity is holding an object in a state of rest on the ground - surely that's work?  One has to apply energy to get the object to move.  And that applied energy needs to defeat that gravitational pull.  So technically?  An object at rest is still interacting - rather energetically - with the gravitational pull. 

Of course, I agree that a mag field is "Flowing", but until someone comes up with a "Magnetically Resistive" material, a magnet not in motion will not do "Work".

Your average fridge magnet must be continually interacting with the material in the fridge door - else it would fall.  Yet the magnet itself is NOT moving.  Surely?  And that interaction is either equal to the gravitational pull or greater - again, else it would fall.  If gravity exerts a continual force on all materials and that force can be used - as your example of a water tower - then by the same token - when materials are able to resist that force they must be working against that gravitational pull.  Technically the tower that holds up the water tank is also working against a gravitational pull.  It also is working.   

One last thing, before I go educate myself further so I can be a little more logical, If the magnet were transferring energy, wouldn't that require the magnet to weaken over time?  Many commercial magnets are even shipped with "Keepers" to prevent such loss by completing the flow circuit.  If the "Flow" were to cause "Transfer", or in this case "Loss" then the addition of the keeper would make the magnet lose More strength, rather than "Keep" the force within the magnet.  All I'm saying there is, the "Keeper" would or should be caller a "Loser", as continual flow would reduce it's energy content.

Good point Loner.  Effectively - whatever flux comprises - on your standard permanent magnet the amount of energy used in keeping it bound to a fridge door is - potentially - infinite.  Very interesting point.  Effectively a standard bar magnet is also a source of perpetual energy.  We're sort of flirting with some rather politically incorrect terminology here.  LOL

It's refreshing to be able to have such a conversation, without flames or malice.  This is the type of thing that makes for good science.

I realize this is "Off Topic",  as in it's discussing magnets, but I'm hoping the method of discussion is in line with the topic.  Let me know as I'll follow the lead wherever it goes....

I second this. 

Regards,
Rosemary

@Loner

As far as I see it loner, we are APPLYING critical thought to this subject, so therefore I deem it "on topic". A  practical demonstration of the principles involved.

I really did miss these conversations with you and others Art, while I was away from the forum. You have the habit of conceptually keeping me honest, as well as addressing highly relevant issues with the topics themselves.

The definitions for work are semi-usable (adequate). Where I find the lack of logic is the concept that the definition is allowable here, but not there, when the observable demonstrable effects are similar if not the same.  If the definitions are allowable for one system, they are allowable for all similar systems. Error in definition seems to hinge upon a notion for "useful work", and not "work" itself. Wasted work is still work.

The water in the water tower required X energy to lift it from point A to vertical point B. Work was done to lift it. Yet, energy is constantly being transferred from the water to the tower itself, then applied to the ground below actively and constantly compressing the dirt. Geologically speaking this pressure would technically cause the tower to bury itself in the ground, as geology shows that due to the pressure the tower is constantly moving vertically downward. I bring up this point as a concept which is denied in one subset of science actively often has a necessary proponent in another area of study. However, the tower in physics SEEMS to not be moving, solely as the TIME SCALES upon which measurements are made are far too small.

If the concept is incorrect as applied towards physics, then it is untrue for geology as well. (I think the geologists would tell the stuffed shirts at this point to stuff it. :-) )

Resistance to a magnetic field is called reluctance. If a magnetic field encountered no resistance, the concept of "the path of least resistance" would be moot.

I will probably post again on reply, as I am going solely from memory Art, and I know I forgot to address some of the points you made.

-----------

@Rosemary

The qualifications of your speaking shall be determined solely upon the logic employed. Please feel free to contribute despite troll interruption.

I have to deal with autism on a daily basis, as my son is autistic. It is amazing how his fits resemble the attitudes of many supposedly intelligent individuals. If anyone is trying to start a fight (flame you), then follow my dear departed mothers advice..... Let them stick their heads up their proverbial rears and fight for air. :-)

If any flaming becomes a problem, I will approach Harti myself about it, as no-one deserves to live under a state of constant attack, verbal or otherwise.

Paul Andrulis