Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

  1.  
    Posted By: duncan toruschirp> An Orbo run backwards is by definition.


    Ooh nice, but how about:

    chirp<

    with the open beak.

    (And all the best marketed systems use characters or names that make googling them up a nightmare C# etc.)
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2012
     
    Posted By: loremanMmmm. Baked neo.....
    On cornbread with hyperchlorinated biphenol syrup, yum.
  2.  
    Posted By: timetrumpet
    Posted By: duncan toruschirp> An Orbo run backwards is by definition.


    Ooh nice, but how about:

    chirp<

    with the open beak.

    I love it, now need Al's blessing!
    •  
      CommentAuthoralsetalokin
    • CommentTimeJul 20th 2012 edited
     
    chirp<Sounds great to me. Let everyone know!

    chirp<Linux puts <chirp in the middle button!
  3.  
    chirp<all I need is some private investment

    chirp<the initial public offering is coming soon
  4.  
    chirp< TGIs - poor food, cute waitress, wrong thread
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2012 edited
     
    Chirp<you mean chirp< in the middle button

    Chirp< standards are important, even for the inventor.
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2012 edited
     
    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 we pay for 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)

    Since one of your magnets is inducing magnetisation in the other, with a delay to boot, that's the situation in this case.

    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.

    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...!!!
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
     
    I 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.
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
     
    OK everyone try concentrate here - when we take an mech. energy integral we're simply multiply F x D. Using whatever method one likes. To Josh & Angus - denying W=FxD is not even pedantry, it's just palpably idiotic - and equally clear you're both completely stumped by the actual energy result... Now if there's half a wit of intelligence between the pair of you, please elaborate for us... where has the energy gone?
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
     
    Posted By: Vibrator
    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)

    Since one of your magnets is inducing magnetisation in the other, with a delay to boot, that's the situation in this case.

    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.

    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...!!!
    So much jibber jabber.
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
     
    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...?
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2012 edited
     
    So much jibber jabber.
    So you're stuck then?

    What can't you understand?

    Where'd the energy go..?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
     
    You are trolling by arguing about increments of each post.

    Multiplying two numbers is NOT the same thing as multiplying a function by an infinitesimal of one of its variables and integrating, whether you think that pedantry or not. I have already answered your question and so has Joshs. I'm finished with this.
  5.  
    "Where'd the energy go..? "

    Into bad accounting practices. Just like the money. Look in the pockets of banksters and drinksters for your empty energy.....

    Vibrator.... forget the magnetic interactions and all your theories about them for a moment. Spin the rotor, time the rundown. Now remove the stator magnets. Spin again. Compare. Vary your magnet positions however you like, but always compare to a control of the same mass and articulation but without magnetic interactions. Analyze and discuss.

    Why.... if there is all this per-interaction Sv energy destruction and creation going on.... does the rotor take exactly as long to spin down as one would predict, taking bearing friction, windage, and conservative magnetic interactions into account? The experiments have been done MANY times.

    If there was a net energy gain of the magnitude claimed by Steorn in their systems...on the order of several Joules per magnet passage, IIRC.... their rotor had low enough losses otherwise that it would have sped up to equilibrium (or destruction). No Orbos ever did this. On the other hand if there was a net energy loss per interaction... then the rotor would have taken more power from the pulse drive system to maintain a given RPM at the rotor than predicted by friction alone (calculated from unpowered, no-magnet rundowns, along with rundowns with symmetrical magnet arrangements that would produce cogging but no thrust/drag under the Sv hypotheses.) No Orbos ever demonstrated this either.

    You are analyzing, but your analysis ignores the actual behaviour of the device and the system that you are analyzing. Orbos neither ran too fast or too long, nor did they take too much power to drive. Input power was commensurate with rotor mechanical power dissipation plus the massive _electrical losses_ that their pulse motor system entailed. And I have reams, literally, of chart recordings and other measurements that prove it.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
     
    Posted By: Vibrator
    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: Vibrator
    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...?
    I told you before, if you are going to troll, you will need to use better bait.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
     
    Posted By: Vibrator
    So much jibber jabber.
    So you're stuck then?

    What can't you understand?

    Where'd the energy go..?
    Get better bait.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDerrickA
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: VibratorSo much my jibber jabber. So you're I'm stuck then?

    What can't you I understand?

    Where'd the energy go..?


    There, fixed that for you, as you should know full well, the burden of proof is on you, not us. You are the one claiming unexplained energy loss (or gain). Papers please. Where is your apparatus to show energy loss? Where are your calculations? If you can't be arsed to provide them, then it's just so much hand waving and gums flapping on your part.

    Where'd the energy go..?

    Lot's of places you might not expect. A little bit here, a little bit there...
    For starters: Acoustic vibrations/mechanical strain, crystallisation of materials, phase changes (latent heat), electrostatic charges.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
     
    A great deal of the energy is lost in arguing about where the energy went.
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeJul 21st 2012
     
    ...Zipons,..