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

    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012 edited
     
    Posted By: VibratorGod you're dense... :(


    I know, I know. It comes from having a solid grounding in these matters.

    A "conservative" vector field is a mathematical concept. (It means that the curl of the field is zero everywhere, if you want to know.) It also means that the path integral of the dot product of field vector with the path element is equal to zero if carried out around a closed path . The electric and magnetic fields set up by charges and currents are (instantaneously) conservative.

    If the field varies during the time you actually carry out the path integral, it is possible that the integral might come out zero, or might not. The field at any one time is a conservative field, but you are not doing the integral on the same field all the way round the path. Thus it might or might not look like a conservative field to you depending on the details of how it varies.

    Hence "Not necessarily conservative". Terminology is a bit loose, but I'm trying to help you here.Which is a hopeless cause, I know, so I will immediately revert to my earlier intention of not trying to explain things to you when I'm done.

    Now if the path integral does not come out to zero it means that either some energy was put into pushing the test charge about, or the test charge put some energy into pushing whatever is generating the field about. Or it could mean that energy goes has gone into altering the field, as in pushing the magnetic domains about, changing the energy stored in the field, and material heating as the domains move.

    Nothing is missing unless you can experimentally demonstrate that it is. So far, after 150 odd years, the theory and the measurements have stood up very nicely indeed, so you will have to be very fortunate to find something new.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDerrickA
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    Perhaps Vibrator is trying to cut the Landau-Lifshitz equation down a notch?

    Careful With That Axe Eugene.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    He should master basic vector calculus first. Hadn't heard that piece for a long time. Thanks!
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    Posted By: VibratorJosh, you've also explained Sv loss in that other thread, where you state:

    [..] Then when you are down at the bottom of the MPE well, and wait awhile what happens? B builds to its final value as the domains align. Now, you have to apply a greater F at each point pulling the damn things apart than you were able to apply to your load letting them come together.


    Why is this an insufficient explanation? It seems perfectly cognisant to me, so whence cometh the caloric?
    Do try to come up with better bait.
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    Vibrobot, why don't you come up with some experimental evidence for you claims....or just fuck off.
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    Posted By: BigOilRepVibrobot, why don't you come up with some experimental evidence for you claims....or just fuck off.
    Duh. Take a swivel on Rutherford 1896, troglodyte.
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    So, no experimental evidence then? At least PJH is putting his money where his mouth his. You haven't the balls to test your theory, as you know it won't work.

    Just your usual garden path, world salad, blather.
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    I know, I know. It comes from having a solid grounding in these matters.
    Lol you'll forgive me if i find that hard to believe, but hey maybe that would also explain the lazy groupthink..



    A "conservative" vector field is a mathematical concept. (It means that the curl of the field is zero everywhere, if you want to know.) It also means that the path integral of the dot product of field vector with the path element is equal to zero if carried out around a closed path . The electric and magnetic fields set up by charges and currents are (instantaneously) conservative.
    Yes, we know the curl of B is zero per Maxwell; magnetic fields are conservative. This is not in dispute.

    If the field varies during the time you actually carry out the path integral, it is possible that the integral might come out zero, or might not. The field at any one time is a conservative field, but you are not doing the integral on the same field all the way round the path. Thus it might or might not look like a conservative field to you depending on the details of how it varies.

    Hence "Not necessarily conservative". Terminology is a bit loose, but I'm trying to help you here.Which is a hopeless cause, I know, so I will immediately revert to my earlier intention of not trying to explain things to you when I'm done.

    Now if the path integral does not come out to zero it means that either some energy was put into pushing the test charge about, or the test charge put some energy into pushing whatever is generating the field about. Or it could mean that energy goes has gone into altering the field, as in pushing the magnetic domains about, changing the energy stored in the field, and material heating as the domains move.
    So to summarise: The magnetic field is always conservative, but the conversion of mechanical energy to MPE and back (as in any simple PM exchange) is not conservative when the field varies in time between inbound and outbound legs - whatever the causes of that variation. Usually the causes of any such variations are also the source for their energy requirements - any change in force that performs work costs an equal amount of work to be performed at the field source.

    However here the change is automatic - we don't pay any input energy to change the field strength. In this lossy example we're paying for the result of the changed field, but the change itself is thermodynamically "free" in every sense - the magnets cover the same total B/H space as they would without Sv present, and the field variation is just a delay between the domain speeds and our mechanical speeds.

    So the fields are always conservative, but with respect to Sv interactions, the conversion of MPE to KE is time dependent... it is THIS aspect that is non-conservative. Are we in agreement thus far?



    Nothing is missing unless you can experimentally demonstrate that it is. So far, after 150 odd years, the theory and the measurements have stood up very nicely indeed, so you will have to be very fortunate to find something new.
    No, energy IS missing. Again, if we ignore entropic losses for clarity's sake, we could use current from a superconducting ring to power our magnetic interaction's input, and recharge it from the output; without Sv, the system will cycle forever, but With Sv the current will be exhausted within a few cycles.

    The sink for this energy isn't heat, net displacement, or a net change in B - it's the free force variation. If we wish to rigorously apply CoE we can only presume the vacuum potential has increased in proportion to the energy we've sunk into it, via the usual mediator of MPE-to-KE exchanges, the virtual photonsphere. Of course we currently have no way of testing such a presumption, nonetheless we're left no alternative by the 1st law.

    What say you?
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    Posted By: BigOilRepSo, no experimental evidence then? At least PJH is putting his money where his mouth his. You haven't the balls to test your theory, as youknowit won't work.

    Just your usual garden path, world salad, blather.
    No it's NOT my theory dumbass, Sv loss is caused by domain lag, it's a well-described result in the literature, none of it credited to myself.
    • CommentAuthorVibrator
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    Posted By: joshs
    Posted By: VibratorJosh, you've also explained Sv loss in that other thread, where you state:

    [..] Then when you are down at the bottom of the MPE well, and wait awhile what happens? B builds to its final value as the domains align. Now, you have to apply a greater F at each point pulling the damn things apart than you were able to apply to your load letting them come together.


    Why is this an insufficient explanation? It seems perfectly cognisant to me, so whence cometh the caloric?
    Do try to come up with better bait.
    Hey i can only work with what i'm given - this is your source material...

    So what gives? You describe the sink as a force variation but continue to insist on heat production, with no mechanism offered and no explanation of the contradiction - am i misrepresenting you? Correct me then...
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    Posted By: Vibratorif we ignore entropic losses for clarity's sake,


    If you ignore "entropic losses", by which you mean conversion of some energy to heat, then what makes your domains lag?

    You are tedious and rude and itching for a banner.
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    Posted By: VibratorNo it's NOT my theory dumbass, Sv loss is caused by domain lag, it's a well-described result in the literature

    Show me the literature that concludes this results in a CoE violation.

    You are claiming a CoE violation - so show the experimental evidence or fuck off.
    • CommentAuthorAngie
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    So - Angus says he'll watch the kids if I come over here and deal with some dude called Vibrator (as if.) So like I guess this emo must rilly suck.

    So bring it on.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    So to sum up in layman's terms, Vibrator is saying that Steorn were right after all?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    It seems to me more like he's saying everybody's wrong except him.
    • CommentAuthorloreman
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    If it's the same "Vibrator", he denies the existence of the faculty of Absolute Pitch, and is therefore Ignorant
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    Posted By: loremanIf it's the same "Vibrator", he denies the existence of the faculty of Absolute Pitch, and is therefore Ignorant


    Doubly so. A pox upon his tin ear and wooden brain.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJul 22nd 2012
     
    Posted By: Vibrator
    Posted By: joshs
    Posted By: VibratorJosh, you've also explained Sv loss in that other thread, where you state:

    [..] Then when you are down at the bottom of the MPE well, and wait awhile what happens? B builds to its final value as the domains align. Now, you have to apply a greater F at each point pulling the damn things apart than you were able to apply to your load letting them come together.


    Why is this an insufficient explanation? It seems perfectly cognisant to me, so whence cometh the caloric?
    Do try to come up with better bait.
    Hey i can only work with what i'm given - this is your source material...

    So what gives? You describe the sink as a force variation but continue to insist on heat production, with no mechanism offered and no explanation of the contradiction - am i misrepresenting you? Correct me then...
    Bzzzzzzt. Try again. It is amusing to watch you twist yourself up in pretzel logic just as predicted.

    It is your claim that Sv sends energy into Never Never Land. If you actually believe that drivel, then set up an experiment and try to prove your claim.
    • CommentAuthorjoshs
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2012
     
    Posted By: loremanSo to sum up in layman's terms, Vibrator is saying that Steorn were right after all?
    Halfway. Our shaky friend contends that Sv provides a mechanism to violate Conservation of Energy by either destroying it, or otherwise sending it to the Land of Lost Joules. He suggests if one can violate CoE with a loss mechanism that perhaps one can violate it with a gain.

    He is on very shaky ground. In order to try and make his case, he constantly switches his signs back and forth. In some posts he's claimed that we are putting energy in allowing the magnets to come together. In others he's acknowledged that's where we can extract mechanical out. It was funny the first few dozen times.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDerrickA
    • CommentTimeJul 23rd 2012
     
    Posted By: joshsIt is your claim that Sv sends energy into Never Never Land. If you actually believe that drivel, then set up an experiment and try to prove your claim.


    Never Never Land is too nice a neighbourhood. Vibrator would likely be sending his energy to a place far cheesier: The Land of the Lost.