Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Posted By: duncan toruschirp> An Orbo run backwards is by definition.
Posted By: loremanMmmm. Baked neo.....On cornbread with hyperchlorinated biphenol syrup, yum.
Posted By: timetrumpetPosted By: duncan toruschirp> An Orbo run backwards is by definition.
Ooh nice, but how about:
chirp<
with the open beak.
You may have heard everything but you clearly didn't learn much from it.
If you move a test magnet around a closed path in a CONSTANT magnetic field, then indeed no net work is done. But if the field varies as you move around, then the situation changes. Indeed you use that fact every time you switch on an electric motor. The field varies as the rotor whizzes round, allowing the rotor to extract power from the mains which are driving the field.
As Josh's points out, you can't just multiply force times distance to get work if the force varies with the distance. You have to do the path integral over F(s) ds. When the function F(s) itself varies over the time taken to traverse the path, then you have to include that. But the force field F(s) is what is conservative. There is no guarantee on F(s,t)well duh... yes that's why we have integral calculus. We're multiplying force by displacement, as i said (if instead i'd said "we take the integral of.." you'd have responded "..no we take the line integral" like you did last time. Either way it's clear this is all as new and unfamiliar to yourself as it is to Josh, but rest assured, energy or work is a function of force and distance. So you plot the force at whatever increments over the given distance, and find that the input stroke integrates more area under the curve from the higher force, thus translating to an increased input energy.
Since one of your magnets is inducing magnetisation in the other, with a delay to boot, that's the situation in this case.
Posted By: VibratorSo much jibber jabber.You may have heard everything but you clearly didn't learn much from it.
If you move a test magnet around a closed path in a CONSTANT magnetic field, then indeed no net work is done. But if the field varies as you move around, then the situation changes. Indeed you use that fact every time you switch on an electric motor. The field varies as the rotor whizzes round, allowing the rotor to extract power from the mains which are driving the field.
Exactly, and via the coupling mechanism of BEMF wepayfor any such changes in the magnetic field, and all the work they perform. So to complete the comparison, we could also make our motor a brake, providing counter-torque instead of torque. And we'd be paying for every joule of energy we sunk into it, at the power supply... in both CEMF and heat.
The difference here then is that we're exploiting a FREE change in flux density. It's automatic - we just pause a second doing nothing, then reap an increased force that we haven't paid for.As Josh's points out, you can't just multiply force times distance to get work if the force varies with the distance. You have to do the path integral over F(s) ds. When the function F(s) itself varies over the time taken to traverse the path, then you have to include that. But the force field F(s) is what is conservative. There is no guarantee on F(s,t)well duh... yes that's why we have integral calculus. We're multiplying force by displacement, as i said (if instead i'd said "we take the integral of.." you'd have responded "..no we take thelineintegral" like you did last time. Either way it's clear this is all as new and unfamiliar to yourself as it is to Josh, but rest assured, energy or work is a function of force and distance. So you plot the force at whatever increments over the given distance, and find that the input stroke integrates more area under the curve from the higher force, thus translating to an increased input energy.
Since one of your magnets is inducing magnetisation in the other, with a delay to boot, that's the situation in this case.
No spontaneous heat creation required.
Thus this increased mechanical input energy - that hasn't been returned by the output stroke - has instead been sunk into the aether / destroyed or whatever. In principle you could dump megajoules or any quantity of energy into it without converting one milijoule of it to heat.
If you did this with a reversed electric motor, all of that energy would be converted to heat - so it wouldn't be thermodynamically destroyed in the same way, it would instead be conserved and dissipated back into the local environment. If you placed the apparatus into a calorimeter this would be confirmed.
However using laggy permanent magnets the energy is simply wiped out of existence, for free.
This is the point...!!!
Posted By: AngusI have no idea what all that is supposed to mean and I doubt that you do either. But I do assure you that electromagnetic theory is very far from new to me. Internal evidence leads me to think Josh's knows a thing or three about it as well. The same sort of evidence shows that you, on the other hand, don't.But you're both unaware that energy = F x D...? (this is what you get from the integral)
So much jibber jabber.So you're stuck then?
Posted By: VibratorPosted By: AngusI have no idea what all that is supposed to mean and I doubt that you do either. But I do assure you that electromagnetic theory is very far from new to me. Internal evidence leads me to think Josh's knows a thing or three about it as well. The same sort of evidence shows that you, on the other hand, don't.But you're both unaware that energy = F x D...? (this is what you get from the integral)
You previously described an energy loss - you said the input energy's higher because the force increases when paused, due to Sv.
Then you said that the increased energy went to heat. Explain this, using your oh-so-capable physics knowledge...?
Posted By: VibratorI told you before, if you are going to troll, you will need to use better bait.Posted By: AngusI have no idea what all that is supposed to mean and I doubt that you do either. But I do assure you that electromagnetic theory is very far from new to me. Internal evidence leads me to think Josh's knows a thing or three about it as well. The same sort of evidence shows that you, on the other hand, don't.But you're both unaware that energy = F x D...? (this is what you get from the integral)
You previously described an energy loss - you said the input energy's higher because the force increases when paused, due to Sv.
Then you said that the increased energy went to heat. Explain this, using your oh-so-capable physics knowledge...?
Posted By: VibratorGet better bait.So much jibber jabber.So you're stuck then?
What can't you understand?
Where'd the energy go..?
Posted By: VibratorSomuchmy jibber jabber. Soyou'reI'm stuckthen?
What can'tyouI understand?
Where'd the energy go..?