Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

kimmy, earlier on in the discussion, explained to you kids that when we hold something like an elastic out of its normal position at rest that we use energy to do so. Our muscles are used and they create thermal energy, fuel in the form of food is being used and energy is produced to hold the elastic in a stretched position. This is true.

The last part is not correct. Energy is not being used to hold the elastic in position. Energy is being used to keep your muscles contracted.

The energy is applied to the elastic to stretch it. No further energy is applied to hold it in place.

Once the band has been stretched, it can be held in place forever with zero expenditure of energy, by (for example) looping it over a stick. No further energy being added to the system by the stick. The stick is merely preventing the elastic from releasing its stored energy.

So if holding the elastic in place requires no energy, then why does your hand get tired from holding the elastic? Because your muscle fibres are living cells that continuously burn energy. When muscles contract, they are spending continuously forming chemical bonds between muscle fibres. When the muscles run out of chemical energy, they can't form any more chemical bonds, and they cease to contract. They loosen, your grip on the elastic loosens, and the elastic is free to release its stored energy.

It is much like the difference between an electromagnet and a permanent magnet. The electromagnet is like your muscles; both require a continuous input of energy to generate force. The stick is like the permanent magnet is like the stick; it generates force due to its inherent properties.

The question is then what energy is being used by a magnet to hold the spring contact closed? The conventional answer is none. There is no use of fuel, there is no thermal energy produced, no work is done. It's magnetic force. The forces are in balance and no energy is expended.

McCutcheon is saying is that some force is necessary to counter the constant return force of the spring and holding it requires the expenditure of energy, just as any force holding something out of its lowest energy position requires an expenditure of energy.

Yes, but he is fundamentally wrong.

*Moving* something from a state of lowest energy requires energy.

*Keeping* it in place (whether that state has the lowest energy state or not) does not require energy, it only requires an equilibrium of forces.

Lifting a brick from the ground to on top of a shelf requires energy.

Staying on the shelf doesn't require energy, it only requires that the downward force of the brick's weight be balanced by the upward force provided by the shelf.

That's as simple as it gets.

And as wrong as it gets.

Just for the satisfaction of Bonam and kimmy I took my basic electronics and radar training in the services and have worked in related industries for most of my life.

Fair enough. As I've made mention of my grade 10 physics background, I'll also add that I also took grade 11 physics, grade 12 physics, and first year "honors" physics courses at the U of A.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 231
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And your indoctrination into the Community-State at that level, at the expense of the Individual, wherein you learned not to be "self-determined and make [your] own choices in life," remains part of the reason you cannot understand Pliny's theories of....uh........

Perhaps if I had not attended school, I would be free to enjoy this new Pliny world that's free from the fascism of facts. I imagine it must feel quite good to be able to simply choose which facts are right for you.

Interesting article... I especially liked this part:

But Juggalo culture is no freak of nature. Indeed, one can see it as part of a reactionary groundswell of American culture that sees ignorance of science and book-learnin' not as a weakness, but as a virtue. It's the presidency of George W Bush (famously not really "a details guy"), Tea Party tub-thumpers convinced Obama is a Muslim socialist because Glenn Beck was just thinking it out loud, and creationists disproving evolution by pointing out no one ever found life in a jar of peanut butter.

This is a mindset that knows what it knows thanks to what the US comedian Stephen Colbert called "truthiness" etc etc – defined by Colbert as "a 'truth' that a person claims to know intuitively, from the gut, without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination or facts". And it stubbornly refuses to be enlightened.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

It does indeed take energy to move the electrons and bend the spring and hold it with an electromagnet but doesn't appear to need to move any electrons with a permanent magnet in order to bend the spring and hold it.

You seem to be talking about permanent magnets here and YES... The mass of the spring moves a given distance so energy is involved.

It comes from the sun though not from from the magnet.

Long story short... Photosynthesis converts energy from the sun into simple sugars... Then you eat them (or you eat other animals that eat them)... and your body turns those simple sugars into energy by breaking large molecules into smaller ones, and releases CO2 as a biproduct.

Now that you have had eaten a big delicious bowl of glucose you now have the energy it takes to move that permanent magnet into place, and THAT is what causes work to be done (the mass of the spring moving a given distance). Some of the energy has been used simply to move the magnet into position (maybe you had to walk 1000 miles to get the magnet into place!) and some of it will be stored as potential energy in the spring itself.

This scenario does not pose a challenge in any way to relativity, and that is why a literally endless parade of attempts to extract energy from permanent magnets has failed. Force is not energy... It cannot do work. You could hold a magnet in your hand and use it to pull a toy train around its tracks... but every bit of that energy ultimate comes from the sun, not the magnet. If you stop moving the magnet around the tracks the train stops too.

Edited by dre
Link to post
Share on other sites

kimmy, on 03 Aug 2013 - 11:38 AM, said:

Fair enough. As I've made mention of my grade 10 physics background, I'll also add that I also took grade 11 physics, grade 12 physics, and first year "honors" physics courses at the U of A.

-k

It does sound like it.

kimmy, on 03 Aug 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

A coil of wire with a current flowing through it creates a magnetic field.

Insert a piece of iron into the coil, and the magnetic field becomes much stronger, because the magnetic poles of the iron atoms will align themselves to the magnetic field generated by the coil. Each iron atom's own magnetic field adds to the overall magnetic field, and the end result is the magnetic field created by the electric coil plus the sum of the magnetic fields of each iron atom.

But note that even though the magnetic field in one instance is much stronger, the amount of energy we put in in both instances is the same. It takes the same amount of energy to move the energy through the coil of wire whether there is an iron core there or not.

And then suppose we take that coil of wire and unspool it so that it's just a pile of unorganized spaghetti instead of a coil, and put an electric current through it. It still requires the same amount of energy, except now there is no net magnetic field being created because the wire is now arranged at random so that the magnetic field generated by any given length of wire is cancelled out by the field generated by some other random length of wire.

So what you should be getting from this is that the magnetic field isn't a function of the energy that we put through the wire.

Of course it is, the energy is necessary or else no magnetic field is generated at all.

Quote

And when that coil of wire and its iron core are acting on a spring to create an electrical contact (this is called a "relay"...) the energy you put into the coil of wire to create the magnetic field whether the little metal contact is present, or whether that coil of wire were creating the field in empty space. Break open your relay, remove the spring and the metal contact, and apply current, and you'll find that your relay still uses the same amount of energy.

Conclusion: holding that spring contact closed does not consume energy.

However, the energy is necessary and is converted to electron aligning to produce magnetism and that is converted to align electrons in a ferrous material such as a spring. Energy is never consumed. Unless Einstein was wrong?

I think there are a few Physics teachers that teach energy can be consumed, perhaps yours did? Power companies use the term consumed as in how much you converted to different forms. When one turns on a light one says he is consuming energy. In actual fact he is only converting it to a different form. In the context of which we are talking about energy, it cannot be consumed.

Holding the spring contact closed is a conversion of some of the electrical energy.

The wire being in a random unorganized pile of spaghetti still converts energy to heat mostly and if there is no resistance it may create enough heat to melt the wire.

What you have described is how the electrical energy is converted in a coil with an iron core and differently without a coil.

Physics with honours from universities often gets one thinking in terms of whether energy is consumed or not consumed.

Quote

So what about permanent magnets? Remember earlier we had the loop of wire with the current going through it, and found that when we insert an iron core into the loop, the magnetic field becomes much stronger because the iron atoms line up with the field and each atom's magnetic field adds to the overall field. With a permanent magnet, it is the same, except that the permanent magnet does not need the external field to line up the atoms. The atoms are already aligned.

How did they get aligned? They were aligned when the magnet was created. One way to do this would be by heating a piece of magnetic material so that the atoms can move freely, putting it inside a magnetic field to align the atoms, and then cooling the material to lock the atoms in place.

-k

Thanks for the lesson. You are very patient. Edited by Pliny
Link to post
Share on other sites

It does sound like it.

Of course it is, the energy is necessary or else no magnetic field is generated at all.

However, the energy is necessary and is converted to electron aligning to produce magnetism and that is converted to align electrons in a ferrous material such as a spring. Energy is never consumed. Unless Einstein was wrong?

Conservation of energy is a lot older than Einstein.

A very small amount of energy is required to align the atoms in the piece of iron. Once they are aligned, all of the energy that we are putting into that electromagnet is being converted to heat. Didn't we already cover that?

I think there are a few Physics teachers that teach energy can be consumed, perhaps yours did? Power companies use the term consumed as in how much you converted to different forms. When one turns on a light one says he is consuming energy. In actual fact he is only converting it to a different form. In the context of which we are talking about energy, it cannot be consumed.

I am entirely clear on what energy means, and how the law of conservation of energy works. We're going through this exercise for your benefit, not mine.

The electrical energy being put into the coil of wire is conserved as heat. It is the same amount of energy whether the coil of wire is generating a magnetic field that holds a spring closed, or whether the coil of wire is generating a magnetic field in free space that's not pulling on anything, or if the coil of wire has been unraveled and piled in a random mess that is generating no net magnetic field at all. In all 3 cases, the electrical energy we put into the wire is converted to heat. In all 3 cases, the exact same amount of heat is generated.

Holding the spring contact closed is a conversion of some of the electrical energy.

No. Pulling the spring closed requires energy. Once it is in the closed position, it requires no further energy.

The wire being in a random unorganized pile of spaghetti still converts energy to heat mostly and if there is no resistance it may create enough heat to melt the wire.

If there is no electrical resistance, putting current through the wire uses almost zero energy and generates almost no heat at all. And if we could wind our electromagnet with a wire made of a superconductive material instead of copper, our electromagnet would require almost zero energy to create a magnetic field. (this is why finding a room-temperature superconductor would be such a big deal!)

However, you're probably thinking of a relay wound with copper wire that might have a current-limiting resistor in-line with it to reduce the current flow so that the wire doesn't get damaged. Copper wire doesn't actually have zero resistance.

Let's consider a typical commercial relay like this Panasonic 12V relay:

http://pewa.panasonic.com/assets/pcsd/catalog/alz-catalog.pdf

The coil has a DC resistance of 360 ohms. Is 360 ohms a lot of resistance for a coil of copper wire? Well, considering that the coil has thousands of windings and might be a hundred feet long if you unspool it, no. The resistance of long lengths of wire is actually a serious problem in many electrical applications like building wiring or power distribution.

Anyway, our copper coil has DC resistance of 360 ohms, and when you apply the rated 12V input, you get a current through the wire of 12/360 = 33.3mA. The rated power of the coil is 400mW, and multiplying 12V*33.3mA gives 400mW. Bust open this little transformer, remove the spring contact, and apply 12V, and you will still measure 33.3mA going through the coil.

What you have described is how the electrical energy is converted in a coil with an iron core and differently without a coil.

Whaaaaa? What I have described is how an electromagnet works, how a permanent magnet works, and how the electromagnet requires a continuous flow of current to create a magnetic field while the permanent magnet does not.

Physics with honours from universities often gets one thinking in terms of whether energy is consumed or not consumed.

There is no "consumed", there's only converted. Most commonly, converted to wasted heat.

The physics courses I have taken got me grounded in the basics of this subject, which helps me understand things like the difference between force and energy.

Thanks for the lesson. You are very patient.

As I said before, I'm doing it for the children.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

kimmy, on 10 Aug 2013 - 1:18 PM, said:

A very small amount of energy is required to align the atoms in the piece of iron. Once they are aligned, all of the energy that we are putting into that electromagnet is being converted to heat. Didn't we already cover that?

That small amount of energy that aligns the electrons should mean a reduction in a difference of potential, that is the magnetic force, but it doesn't the same force exists as existed prior to the alignment.

Gravity is a force, that is a difference of potential and thus, against the theory of relativity, is a source of energy that never depletes. Magnetism is a similar force that is a source of energy that essentially never depletes.

The absence of dark matter may mean the unraveling of relativity theory.

Quote

I am entirely clear on what energy means, and how the law of conservation of energy works. We're going through this exercise for your benefit, not mine.

It is not for my benefit that you go through this exercise. Of that I am certain.

Quote

The electrical energy being put into the coil of wire is conserved as heat. It is the same amount of energy whether the coil of wire is generating a magnetic field that holds a spring closed, or whether the coil of wire is generating a magnetic field in free space that's not pulling on anything, or if the coil of wire has been unraveled and piled in a random mess that is generating no net magnetic field at all. In all 3 cases, the electrical energy we put into the wire is converted to heat. In all 3 cases, the exact same amount of heat is generated.

A difference of potential, a force, in electricity this is voltage, will only generate as much energy as there is potential, per the conservation of energy. Essentially though, heat will be generated more quickly in the straight or unraveled wire as there is no counter emf built up.

Quote

No. Pulling the spring closed requires energy. Once it is in the closed position, it requires no further energy.

We can open the circuit and it will stay closed then? Energy is necessary to maintain the force that holds the spring cntact closed.

Some of the energy of the circuit has been converted to a force that holds the contact closed. Open the circuit, the energy is released and the contact restores.

The strange thing is that a permanent magnet seemingly doesn't require any energy at all to close the contact since the magnetic force remains the same both before and after.

Quote

If there is no electrical resistance, putting current through the wire uses almost zero energy and generates almost no heat at all.

Putting current through a wire is dissipating a difference of potential and is energy. The lower the resistance the more heat will be generated. That statement demonstrates a rather sophomoric understanding of what you are talking about.

Quote

And if we could wind our electromagnet with a wire made of a superconductive material instead of copper, our electromagnet would require almost zero energy to create a magnetic field. (this is why finding a room-temperature superconductor would be such a big deal!)

But wait, a permanent magnet requires zero energy to maintain its magnetic field.

Quote

However, you're probably thinking of a relay wound with copper wire that might have a current-limiting resistor in-line with it to reduce the current flow so that the wire doesn't get damaged. Copper wire doesn't actually have zero resistance.

Why do you think the wire would be damaged if you think that "putting current through a wire with zero resistance creates almost zero energy and generates almost no heat at all"?

Quote

Let's consider a typical commercial relay like this Panasonic 12V relay:

http://pewa.panasonic.com/assets/pcsd/catalog/alz-catalog.pdf

The coil has a DC resistance of 360 ohms. Is 360 ohms a lot of resistance for a coil of copper wire? Well, considering that the coil has thousands of windings and might be a hundred feet long if you unspool it, no. The resistance of long lengths of wire is actually a serious problem in many electrical applications like building wiring or power distribution.

Anyway, our copper coil has DC resistance of 360 ohms, and when you apply the rated 12V input, you get a current through the wire of 12/360 = 33.3mA. The rated power of the coil is 400mW, and multiplying 12V*33.3mA gives 400mW. Bust open this little transformer, remove the spring contact, and apply 12V, and you will still measure 33.3mA going through the coil.

True. The only difference would be in the length of time it would take for the circuit to reach the 33.3mA. Some of the energy is converted to a force that moves the contact if it is present.

Quote

Whaaaaa? What I have described is how an electromagnet works, how a permanent magnet works, and how the electromagnet requires a continuous flow of current to create a magnetic field while the permanent magnet does not.

There is no "consumed", there's only converted. Most commonly, converted to wasted heat.

The physics courses I have taken got me grounded in the basics of this subject, which helps me understand things like the difference between force and energy.

Would you say that force is a "potential of energy"?

Quote

As I said before, I'm doing it for the children.

-k

You are such a trooper...and so caring. The level you will go to in order to help others is simply amazing and very commendable. No one else would even bother.

I only want to say one thing here about a new "hypothesis" or theory. You have to be willing to try and make it work to understand if it has any validity. If it contradicts prevailing concepts or understanding that is not a reason for it to be dismissed. If it doesn't work it doesn't work and that is the sole criteria necessary to make judgement. I haven't seen too many people try to make McCutcheon's hypothesis work but there is certainly a lot of criticism and outright scoffing of it without any examination. You can say there is nothing to examine and you have said as much but I am of a different opinion and hope it gets more scrutiny from the scientific community. The problems within it are things that perhaps can be resolved and perhaps not but abandoning it out of a contradiction of current understanding is at best unwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit, Pliny! Get it together!

I don't have time to help you right now. I'll get back to this as soon as I'm able. In the meantime, I dunno, don't operate any heavy machinery or power-tools.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meantime, I dunno, don't operate any heavy machinery or power-tools.

-k

Better not. All those have magnets inside them. And the mysterious witchcraft which makes magnets go might run out at any time!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure about how to continue, to be honest. Pliny continues to have the same misunderstandings about points that have been explained and re-explained dozens of times already.

I am wondering if some new method of communication could help. Something involving hand-puppets, perhaps.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm unsure about how to continue, to be honest. Pliny continues to have the same misunderstandings about points that have been explained and re-explained dozens of times already.

I am wondering if some new method of communication could help. Something involving hand-puppets, perhaps.

-k

Something involving....magnets?

horatio-s-sunglasses-o.gif

Edited by cybercoma
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shit, Pliny! Get it together!

I don't have time to help you right now. I'll get back to this as soon as I'm able. In the meantime, I dunno, don't operate any heavy machinery or power-tools.

-k

Well, when you say that "putting current through a wire with zero resistance creates almost zero energy and generates almost no heat at all" I have to wonder if you have my interests in mind at all?

It looks like the kids have chimed in and they seem well up on things. I guess they aren't as stupid as you believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, when you say that "putting current through a wire with zero resistance creates almost zero energy and generates almost no heat at all" I have to wonder if you have my interests in mind at all?

Pliny, you are not just causing doubt about your familiarity with basic science concepts. You are now casting serious doubt about your ability to read.

I did not say "putting current through a wire with zero resistance creates almost zero energy". Here is what I wrote:

If there is no electrical resistance, putting current through the wire uses almost zero energy and generates almost no heat at all. And if we could wind our electromagnet with a wire made of a superconductive material instead of copper, our electromagnet would require almost zero energy to create a magnetic field. (this is why finding a room-temperature superconductor would be such a big deal!)

Notice that I said that our electromagnet "uses" and "requires" energy, and that I said nothing at all about an electromagnet "creating" energy.

If you sat there and read my message and somehow came away thinking "duh yeah she said duh electromagnet creates energy huh huh" you are wrong. I am baffled as to what could possibly be going on in that space between your ears.

This certainly appears hopeless, but my perseverance is undiminished. I will walk you through this once again.

Let us return to the example of the Panasonic relay I mentioned in my previous message.

It has a DC resistance of 360 ohms, and when we apply 12V, a current of 33.3mA flows through the relay. The relay consumes 12V*33.3mA = 400 milliJoules per second of energy, which is dissipated as heat in the copper wire.

Suppose the people at Panasonic made the same relay with a wire coil made out of lead wire instead of copper. Lead has roughly 10 times as much electrical resistance as copper of equal dimensions, so the resistance of this relay with lead windings would be around 3600 ohms.

So it would take 120 Volts to put a current of 33.3mA through the coil of lead wire. The strength of the magnet remains exactly the same, but it is using energy at a rate of 4 Joules per second.

Now, suppose the people at Panasonic invented a material that is so conductive that they can built the exact same coil of wire and it has a resistance of 3.6 nanoOhms. (3.6*10^-9 ohms). Now, it takes only 120 picoVolts (120*10^-12 V) to push a current of 33.3mA through the coil. The magnetic field remains exactly as strong as the first two electromagnets, but now instead of 400 milliJoules per second or 4 milliJoules per second, the electromagnet now requires only 4 picoJoules per second to maintain the magnetic field. The amount of heat buildup in the wire is so small that there's no way to measure it.

And if somebody somehow invented a true perfect conductor with zero resistance, then we could generate our 33.3mA current with zero volts, and the energy applied would be 0V*33.3mA = Zero joules per second, and we would still have a magnetic field just as strong as the 12V panasonic relay.

And that's another demonstration of why your ideas about magnets and energy are just wrong.

The formula for the strength of that electromagnet depends on the number of loops around the core, and it depends on the amount of current going through the wire. It doesn't matter what the applied voltage is; it only matters what the resulting current is. Which means that the energy we put into the coil does not relate to the strength of the magnetic field.

It looks like the kids have chimed in and they seem well up on things. I guess they aren't as stupid as you believe.

If you're wondering why Cybercoma and the others aren't giving you serious responses, you shouldn't be. You should be wondering why I am giving you serious responses. I am kind of wondering that myself.

- k

Link to post
Share on other sites

That small amount of energy that aligns the electrons should mean a reduction in a difference of potential, that is the magnetic force, but it doesn't the same force exists as existed prior to the alignment.

On their own, all of these words have meaning, but you have somehow managed to combine them to form a statement that is completely devoid of sense. Congratulations, I suppose.

Gravity is a force, that is a difference of potential and thus, against the theory of relativity, is a source of energy that never depletes. Magnetism is a similar force that is a source of energy that essentially never depletes.

You can keep saying this, but it remains wrong. No matter how many times you say it, or how you try to rephrase it, it remains utterly false.

Force is *not* energy. Calling it "a difference of potential" does not change that.

The absence of dark matter may mean the unraveling of relativity theory.

Ridiculous. Relativity makes no claims at all as to the existence of or quantities of dark matter in the universe.

A difference of potential, a force, in electricity this is voltage, will only generate as much energy as there is potential, per the conservation of energy. Essentially though, heat will be generated more quickly in the straight or unraveled wire as there is no counter emf built up.

Counter EMF is only an issue during the milliseconds where the spring is moving. After that, there is no counter EMF and the current through the wire is the same.

We can open the circuit and it will stay closed then? Energy is necessary to maintain the force that holds the spring cntact closed.

Yes, some forces are generated by expending energy. Some forces don't.

Pressure can be created using a spring or a weight, but it can also be created by burning fuel inside the combustion chamber in the engine of your Saturn Ion.

Magnetic attraction can be created by a permanent magnet, but it can also be created by moving a bunch of electrons around coils of wire.

Tension can be created a spring or an elastic material, but it can also be created by burning chemical fuel in your muscle fibres to cause chemical bonds to form.

Some of the energy of the circuit has been converted to a force that holds the contact closed. Open the circuit, the energy is released and the contact restores.

So far so good...

The strange thing is that a permanent magnet seemingly doesn't require any energy at all to close the contact since the magnetic force remains the same both before and after.

The permanent magnet doesn't need energy to create the force that pulls the contact closed.

However, as Peter F pointed out weeks ago, you'll notice there's no on/off switch on a permanent magnet. How are you going to close the contact? Either you bring the magnet closer to the contact, or you bring the contact closer to the magnet. Guess what? You're applying energy to the system when you do that. TADA! Mystery solved!

Putting current through a wire is dissipating a difference of potential and is energy. The lower the resistance the more heat will be generated. That statement demonstrates a rather sophomoric understanding of what you are talking about.

I think what's sophomoric here is your reading ability, Pliny. I did not say that lower resistance will cause more heat to be generated. Just the opposite. Go back and reread.

But wait, a permanent magnet requires zero energy to maintain its magnetic field.

Indeed. And if somebody could create a wire with zero electrical resistance, then our electromagnet would also require zero energy to maintain its magnetic field. As we have already said, the electromagnet is spending energy to overcome the electrical resistance of the wire, not creating its magnetic field.

Why do you think the wire would be damaged if you think that "putting current through a wire with zero resistance creates almost zero energy and generates almost no heat at all"?

Pliny! A real world wire does not have zero electrical resistance. And any wire with non-zero electrical resistance builds heat when it carries current. If a wire builds too much heat, it will melt and open the circuit. It's how a fuse works. Did they teach you anything at the Armed Forces radio repair school at all?

Would you say that force is a "potential of energy"?

No, I absolutely would not. We have been through that how many dozen times already in this thread???

We can store potential energy by moving objects opposite a force (compressing springs, lifting objects, pushing electrons against a voltage, etc). But a force is not, on its own, "a potential of energy".

You are such a trooper...and so caring. The level you will go to in order to help others is simply amazing and very commendable. No one else would even bother.

This is all true.

I only want to say one thing here about a new "hypothesis" or theory. You have to be willing to try and make it work to understand if it has any validity. If it contradicts prevailing concepts or understanding that is not a reason for it to be dismissed. If it doesn't work it doesn't work and that is the sole criteria necessary to make judgement. I haven't seen too many people try to make McCutcheon's hypothesis work but there is certainly a lot of criticism and outright scoffing of it without any examination. You can say there is nothing to examine and you have said as much but I am of a different opinion and hope it gets more scrutiny from the scientific community. The problems within it are things that perhaps can be resolved and perhaps not but abandoning it out of a contradiction of current understanding is at best unwise.

The need for this new "revolutionary theory" was ... what was it again? Oh yes, I recall: Mr McCutcheon insists that his idea solves "anomalies" that conventional physics can't explain. But in trying to point out these anomalies, all he does is demonstrate that he doesn't actually understand the science he's attempting to debunk.

A hypothesis is supposed to propose a solution to some problem. What problem is he solving here? How are we supposed to test this hypothesis?

And why would I spend my time studying the ideas of a guy who has shown us quite conclusively that he doesn't know what he's talking about? Should I get fitness advice from Rush Limbaugh? Should I get typing pointers from my cat? Hey, there's some drug-addled teenagers out on the street... I think I am going to go ask for their thoughts on quantum mechanics!

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pliny, you are not just causing doubt about your familiarity with basic science concepts. You are now casting serious doubt about your ability to read.

I did not say "putting current through a wire with zero resistance creates almost zero energy". Here is what I wrote:

Notice that I said that our electromagnet "uses" and "requires" energy, and that I said nothing at all about an electromagnet "creating" energy.

If you sat there and read my message and somehow came away thinking "duh yeah she said duh electromagnet creates energy huh huh" you are wrong. I am baffled as to what could possibly be going on in that space between your ears.

This certainly appears hopeless, but my perseverance is undiminished. I will walk you through this once again.

Let us return to the example of the Panasonic relay I mentioned in my previous message.

It has a DC resistance of 360 ohms, and when we apply 12V, a current of 33.3mA flows through the relay. The relay consumes 12V*33.3mA = 400 milliJoules per second of energy, which is dissipated as heat in the copper wire.

Suppose the people at Panasonic made the same relay with a wire coil made out of lead wire instead of copper. Lead has roughly 10 times as much electrical resistance as copper of equal dimensions, so the resistance of this relay with lead windings would be around 3600 ohms.

So it would take 120 Volts to put a current of 33.3mA through the coil of lead wire. The strength of the magnet remains exactly the same, but it is using energy at a rate of 4 Joules per second.

Now, suppose the people at Panasonic invented a material that is so conductive that they can built the exact same coil of wire and it has a resistance of 3.6 nanoOhms. (3.6*10^-9 ohms). Now, it takes only 120 picoVolts (120*10^-12 V) to push a current of 33.3mA through the coil. The magnetic field remains exactly as strong as the first two electromagnets, but now instead of 400 milliJoules per second or 4 milliJoules per second, the electromagnet now requires only 4 picoJoules per second to maintain the magnetic field. The amount of heat buildup in the wire is so small that there's no way to measure it.

And if somebody somehow invented a true perfect conductor with zero resistance, then we could generate our 33.3mA current with zero volts, and the energy applied would be 0V*33.3mA = Zero joules per second, and we would still have a magnetic field just as strong as the 12V panasonic relay.

And that's another demonstration of why your ideas about magnets and energy are just wrong.

The formula for the strength of that electromagnet depends on the number of loops around the core, and it depends on the amount of current going through the wire. It doesn't matter what the applied voltage is; it only matters what the resulting current is. Which means that the energy we put into the coil does not relate to the strength of the magnetic field.

If you're wondering why Cybercoma and the others aren't giving you serious responses, you shouldn't be. You should be wondering why I am giving you serious responses. I am kind of wondering that myself.

- k

kimmy, I admire that you can still keep explaining stuff to Pliny after all this time. Just for the sake of the readers, I'll expand further on the discussion of the relay coil. It does take energy to initially establish that magnetic field. The coil in the relay is an inductor, and the energy in an inductor is given by the formula:

E = 0.5LI^2

where L is the inductance of the coil and I is the current through it. To establish the current flow through the coil, that much energy must be used, and that energy is transferred into the magnetic field.

This is true regardless of the resistance of the wire. The total impedance of the relay coil consists of the resistive component (which you explained) summed with this inductive component (as well as a capacitive component but this is usually very small as relay coils are designed to minimize capacitive coupling). Unlike the resistive component, which dissipates energy continually so long as current is flowing, the inductive component only takes a one time input of energy (this energy can potentially be recovered when the relay coil is de-energized). The time period over which a voltage must be applied to energize the coil is given by:

V = L dI/dt (this is analogous to the V=IR Ohm's law for a resistor)

For example, if that relay had an inductance of 1 mH (typical for some relay coils), and you applied 12 V to it, it would take:

dt = LdI/V = 0.001*0.0333/12 = 2.78 microseconds of time to energize the relay coil (this is an approximation since I have treated the differential terms algebraically but it is close enough for illustration purposes). And, in this time, you would have input:

E = 0.5 * 0.001 * (0.0333)^2 = 554 nJ of energy into the coil and thus into the magnetic field. You would need to provide this amount of energy even if the coil was made of superconducting (zero resistance) wire. That 554 nJ really is sitting stored in the magnetic field.

Edited by Bonam
Link to post
Share on other sites

On their own, all of these words have meaning, but you have somehow managed to combine them to form a statement that is completely devoid of sense. Congratulations, I suppose.

I think it's a less colourful, less pithy version of the famous phrase, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

:)

On the other hand, the latter was meant to be a sentence which is nonsensical...but grammatically correct. So.....no.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're wondering why Cybercoma and the others aren't giving you serious responses, you shouldn't be. You should be wondering why I am giving you serious responses. I am kind of wondering that myself.

- k

I figure it's because you have a crush on him. :) just kidding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're getting to the end of this pretty soon.

Here's a situation for you.

We have two masses, M1 and M2. M1 is a mass equal to M2. The difference between the two is that M2 has magnetic propertiesWe put M1 or M2 on a rotor and use some energy to get the rotor rotating that takes X amount of energy, because the two masses are equal the energy necessary to turn the rotor should be equal.

Now we place a coil with an iron core next to M1 as it rotates and nothing happens. We place the same coil with an iron core next to M2 and we get an electric current generated in the coil.

The question is, the same amount of energy should be required to move both masses as they are equal, but some of that energy used to move M2 is converted to an electrical current and none is converted with M1? Obviously, more energy is necessary to move and maintain the motion of M2 when it is close to the coil. Why?

The point of the magnet is that although all the parts of the apparatus will need replacement due to wear and tear and the loss of electrical properties the magnetic force in the magnet essentially remains constant, all other things remaining the same, the magnet will generate the current for a few millenia. The only part of the apparatus that doesn't wear out is the magnetic force.

kimmy, in electrical parlance an electrical force or voltage is often referred to interchangeably as a "potential of energy" or "potential" or "difference of potential".

Link to post
Share on other sites

We're getting to the end of this pretty soon.

Is that because you're running out of ways to rephrase the same misconceptions?

Here's a situation for you.

We have two masses, M1 and M2. M1 is a mass equal to M2. The difference between the two is that M2 has magnetic propertiesWe put M1 or M2 on a rotor and use some energy to get the rotor rotating that takes X amount of energy, because the two masses are equal the energy necessary to turn the rotor should be equal.

Now we place a coil with an iron core next to M1 as it rotates and nothing happens. We place the same coil with an iron core next to M2 and we get an electric current generated in the coil.

The question is, the same amount of energy should be required to move both masses as they are equal, but some of that energy used to move M2 is converted to an electrical current and none is converted with M1? Obviously, more energy is necessary to move and maintain the motion of M2 when it is close to the coil. Why?

Because when current starts to flow in the coil, it creates a magnetic field that opposes the magnet in M2, causing a counteracting force that acts against the motion of M2. You're putting in more energy to overcome the repulsive force between the two magnets. Very simple.

The point of the magnet is that although all the parts of the apparatus will need replacement due to wear and tear and the loss of electrical properties the magnetic force in the magnet essentially remains constant, all other things remaining the same, the magnet will generate the current for a few millenia. The only part of the apparatus that doesn't wear out is the magnetic force.

And if we were talking about a waterwheel, everything would wear out except for gravity. Was there a question here?

kimmy, in electrical parlance an electrical force or voltage is often referred to interchangeably as a "potential of energy" or "potential" or "difference of potential".

So first off, Voltage is not "electrical force".

I've heard voltage referred to as "potential" and "potential difference" before, but never as "potential of energy".

"Potential of energy" is not a scientifically meaningful term, and it is certainly not a synonym for "potential energy". "Potential energy" can be measured in Joules. Voltage is not measured in Joules... voltage is actually measured in Joules Per Coulomb (ie, energy per amount of charge). In other words, it is not a potential energy until you have moved some amount of electrical charge in opposition to the voltage, at which point you have stored potential energy proportional to the amount of charge you've moved.

Just as gravity is not potential energy until you have some amount of mass that can fall, a voltage is not Potential Energy until you have some amount of electrical charge that can move to a region of lower potential.

-k

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...