What is your EM crankosity?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Benj on 25 Sep 2009 14:03 On Sep 25, 1:29 pm, RichD <r_delaney2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Sep 22, blackhead <larryhar...(a)softhome.net> wrote: > > > Benj knows quite a bit about science and more than you, going by the > > evidence so far. > > Star Trek physics? Shut up or I'll stuff tribbles in your mailbox.
From: Szczepan Białek on 25 Sep 2009 14:24 "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote news:GJ1vm.218933$e%2.97175(a)newsfe13.ams2... > > "Szczepan Bia�ek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message > news:h9hfh2$fq0$1(a)node1.news.atman.pl... >> >> "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o>wrote >> news:emOum.310182$156.257051(a)newsfe14.ams2... >>> >>> "Szczepan Bia�ek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message >>> news:h9fu7p$8hg$1(a)node1.news.atman.pl... >>>> >>>> "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote >>>> news:ovMum.150320$Xh5.91831(a)newsfe01.ams2... >>>>> >>>>> > It's called voltage doubling and you can block the discharge >>>>> of the cap with a diode. >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_multiplier >>>> >>>> Antennas are like the Kundt's tube. The voltage is the same like the >>>> pressure. The pressure is also doubled. See: >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundt's_tube >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you disagree then I do not care what your opinion is. >>>>> Actually I don't care what your opinion is even if you agree, >>>>> it won't prevent voltage multipliers working. >>>> >>>> But I care what your opinin is about the Acoustic analogy, >>>> S* >>> Yes, the math would be similar. The sonic boom is well known, >>> the sound pressure rises sufficiently to break windows. >>> It's no different to a speeding boat making pebbles on >>> the lakeshore or river bank move. >>> In the Kundt's tube air molecules are travelling in opposite >>> directions and meet at a node, doubling the pressure. >>> In the antenna it's the electrons that do that, but it is the LC >>> rather than the RC circuit that best models it. >>> >>> http://www.thekeeser.com/Electronics%20info/measure_an_unknown_inductor.htm >> >> LC and RC are the same in the Acoustic analogy. L and C are both >> capacitors. > > No, son. > L is a mass with inertia, C is a spring. > http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html I wrote: "Of course it is easy to fill quickly the plate. To fill the very long wire longer time is necessary." Mass and spring are mechanical analogy. In the Gas analogy the coil ( L ) is like coil made of very thin pipe. C like the plate. > > In sound, the air atoms have inertia and the electrons repel, so the air > behaves > just like a mass on a spring. > > In electronics, L is an inductor which behave like the mass, In the coil the electrons travel the long distances. They have mass. Inertia dominate. >C is a capacitor which behaves like the spring. Here the electrons almost do not travel. No inertia. It means that the response time is long for L and short for C. But the both are devices to gather electrons. Quite new approach is not polished. But I hope you get it. > >> Capacitors must have the big surface, Such have the plate or wery long >> wire, Of course it is easy to fill quickly the plate. To fill the very >> long wire longer time is necessary. >> What a pity that no math for such Electrodynamics. >> S* S*
From: Androcles on 25 Sep 2009 15:19 "Szczepan Bia�ek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message news:h9imkh$lcq$1(a)node1.news.atman.pl... > > "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote > news:GJ1vm.218933$e%2.97175(a)newsfe13.ams2... >> >> "Szczepan Bia�ek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message >> news:h9hfh2$fq0$1(a)node1.news.atman.pl... >>> >>> "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o>wrote >>> news:emOum.310182$156.257051(a)newsfe14.ams2... >>>> >>>> "Szczepan Bia�ek" <sz.bialek(a)wp.pl> wrote in message >>>> news:h9fu7p$8hg$1(a)node1.news.atman.pl... >>>>> >>>>> "Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote >>>>> news:ovMum.150320$Xh5.91831(a)newsfe01.ams2... >>>>>> >>>>>> > It's called voltage doubling and you can block the discharge >>>>>> of the cap with a diode. >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage_multiplier >>>>> >>>>> Antennas are like the Kundt's tube. The voltage is the same like the >>>>> pressure. The pressure is also doubled. See: >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kundt's_tube >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you disagree then I do not care what your opinion is. >>>>>> Actually I don't care what your opinion is even if you agree, >>>>>> it won't prevent voltage multipliers working. >>>>> >>>>> But I care what your opinin is about the Acoustic analogy, >>>>> S* >>>> Yes, the math would be similar. The sonic boom is well known, >>>> the sound pressure rises sufficiently to break windows. >>>> It's no different to a speeding boat making pebbles on >>>> the lakeshore or river bank move. >>>> In the Kundt's tube air molecules are travelling in opposite >>>> directions and meet at a node, doubling the pressure. >>>> In the antenna it's the electrons that do that, but it is the LC >>>> rather than the RC circuit that best models it. >>>> >>>> http://www.thekeeser.com/Electronics%20info/measure_an_unknown_inductor.htm >>> >>> LC and RC are the same in the Acoustic analogy. L and C are both >>> capacitors. >> >> No, son. >> L is a mass with inertia, C is a spring. >> http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/SHO/damp.html > > I wrote: "Of course it is easy to fill quickly the plate. To fill the very > long wire > longer time is necessary." You wrote " L and C are both capacitors." I wrote: "No, son." I will write it again. No, son. and again. No, son. No, son. No.
From: Don Kelly on 25 Sep 2009 23:04 -- "Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message news:60cc9877-0643-4756-a08d-d3967ed28166(a)l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com... On Sep 24, 6:49 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...(a)shawcross.ca> wrote: > ---- > and how does one build such an ideal switching machine that has no > transition period and no radiation? In other words, Maxwell's Equations as > well as their approximation, circuit theory, fail mathematically in such > situations (although there are ways around this- all mathematical). > The ideal switch also fails- in implementation. > I do not have Feynman so I cannot look up your references (and the nearest > library that may have them is 200Km away. Do you have a reference on line > to such a switched circuit? The idea of the switched circuit (which in essence the Feynman rocking plates are) is pretty simple. You start with a uniform magnetic field covering a loop of wire. There is a certain amount of flux in the opening in the wire and nothing is moving. Hence no flux changing or cutting and the emf in the wire is zero. Now bring in a second piece of wire with alligator clips on the end. Place this wire in an additional C-shaped loop outside the first loop. Now with neither loop moving attach the alligator clips to the original loop. [Say the alligator clips are held open with screws and then you release the screws to let them chomp down on the bare wire] Again this action does not cause any emf in the original loop. Now take cutters and cut out the wire between the two clips. Once more that act creates no emf to be generated. But if you look at the overall effect of what you've done, in a given amount of time you have increased the total flux of the loop from that of the first loop to that of the first plus second loop. Faraday's law implies that this must have created an emf in the loops. But it didn't. If you get a chance to look at the rocking plate apparatus you'll see it's just a kind of automated version of what I just described. ------- Thanks. I sat down earlier today and figured this out. I used a slightly different approach, starting from a larger loop and simply noting that the emf is independent of the loop material- so replace part of it with an insulator-which doesn't change a thing. Closing the smaller loop by removing an insulator is the same process in reverse. The speed at which this takes place is unimportant. I tried a dead end approach which simply didn't make sense then I stopped , removed an ingrained mindset and thought a bit. You have made your point. Thanks again for your response. Do you need an assistant to clean the toilets? -- Don Kelly dhky(a)shawcross.ca remove the x to reply
From: Androcles on 26 Sep 2009 02:07
"Don Kelly" <dhky(a)shawcross.ca> wrote in message news:Jwfvm.75330$nQ6.73128(a)newsfe07.iad... > > > -- > > "Benj" <bjacoby(a)iwaynet.net> wrote in message > news:60cc9877-0643-4756-a08d-d3967ed28166(a)l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 24, 6:49 pm, "Don Kelly" <d...(a)shawcross.ca> wrote: > >> ---- >> and how does one build such an ideal switching machine that has no >> transition period and no radiation? In other words, Maxwell's Equations >> as >> well as their approximation, circuit theory, fail mathematically in such >> situations (although there are ways around this- all mathematical). >> The ideal switch also fails- in implementation. >> I do not have Feynman so I cannot look up your references (and the >> nearest >> library that may have them is 200Km away. Do you have a reference on line >> to such a switched circuit? > > The idea of the switched circuit (which in essence the Feynman rocking > plates are) is pretty simple. > > You start with a uniform magnetic field covering a loop of wire. There > is a certain amount of flux in the opening in the wire and nothing is > moving. Hence no flux changing or cutting and the emf in the wire is > zero. Now bring in a second piece of wire with alligator clips on the > end. Place this wire in an additional C-shaped loop outside the first > loop. Now with neither loop moving attach the alligator clips to the > original loop. [Say the alligator clips are held open with screws and > then you release the screws to let them chomp down on the bare wire] > Again this action does not cause any emf in the original loop. Now > take cutters and cut out the wire between the two clips. Once more > that act creates no emf to be generated. But if you look at the > overall effect of what you've done, in a given amount of time you have > increased the total flux of the loop from that of the first loop to > that of the first plus second loop. Faraday's law implies that this > must have created an emf in the loops. But it didn't. If you get a > chance to look at the rocking plate apparatus you'll see it's just a > kind of automated version of what I just described. > ------- > Thanks. I sat down earlier today and figured this out. I used a slightly > different approach, starting from a larger loop and simply noting that the > emf is independent of the loop material- so replace part of it with an > insulator-which doesn't change a thing. Closing the smaller loop by > removing an insulator is the same process in reverse. The speed at which > this takes place is unimportant. > > I tried a dead end approach which simply didn't make sense then I stopped > , removed an ingrained mindset and thought a bit. > > You have made your point. Thanks again for your response. Do you need an > assistant to clean the toilets? > Removing an ingrained mindset and thinking can be painful. I congratulate you. Bring a mop and bucket. |