Why are magnets debunked when talked as a source of energy?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Believer99, Feb 23, 2013.

  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    it's a metaphor for does your setup work or not.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    Sigh. Had hopes given the tone of #188 there was at least some to some degree a converging of viewpoint. Alas not so. Sorry to say I have no more patience for this merry-go-round saga. As long as one is comfortable taking a genuinely held position, no great harm done. Let it rest here and now.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Q-reeus Valued Senior Member

    You invite me later on to 'tear away' at your #154. I have no interest in endless tit-for-tat and hoped you would simply get the message and leave off finally. But above, repeated misquote will suffice as a sample of what characterizes you. The correction to above, repeated misquote was given in #143:
    So an evident pathological addiction to distortion - keep repeating a misquote, after being corrected on it, and hope somehow to get away with it. And the best part about this example; contradicting your own position. From #154:
    Decry me for stating an evident truth - QM nature of ferromagnetism (but even the distorted, misquoted version you give will suffice here). As being 'anti-scientific' (Precise and accurate quote again: "Statements like "ferromagnetic materials are intrinsically quantum mechanical in nature" are about as far afield of science as it gets."). Then uber-hypocritically you follow that piece of nonsense by yourself declaring QM nature as universal truth! And expect such an amazing contradictory stance to be ignored! Yes indeed - you are guilty as charged! But why go on picking out every contradictory/distorting/inaccurate/intentionally misleading utterance of yours. An addict as you are will simply keep coming back for more, more, more, and there is no end. But will deal here with one bit of garbage below. [and a reminder - why am I totally unsurprised there has been no attempt to answer my put-up-or-shut-up challenge here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?133466-Light-Speed&p=3050164&viewfull=1#post3050164
    Of course and you know it! Quote me anywhere having said or even implied otherwise. That's a challenge you will lose. Above an absurd and misleading question. An example of your penchant for lifting passages out of proper context in order to make bogus issues out of them. I give the proper context below, but then you just muck it further around with a fake query.
    If there was a shred of genuineness to you, no such phony question would be asked since it was all explained quite well enough in #19, and more recently recapped in #183. Keep asking phony questions, but never attempt to deal with the specifics of my scenario. That clearly answer such phony questions. Again I appeal to you to end this charade. Life's too short as it is.
    Am quite resigned to being stone-walled by the capable few here that surely do know exactly what I'm on about. An amazing place to do battle in is this Colosseum.
    Last edited: Mar 10, 2013
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. leopold Valued Senior Member

    there can't be a convergence of viewpoints at the quantuum level.
    this is where some tests fail or succeed depending on the presence of an observer.
    that pretty well sums it up as far as an inductively induced magnetic field goes under perfect conditions.
    the position is genuine and real.
  8. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Aero and EE are considered the most difficult engineering disciplines. Mechanical is not as difficult, but no engineering is easy.

    My job is in HVAC engineering (heating and air conditioning systems) and related building services.
  9. eram Sciengineer Valued Senior Member

    Thanks Russ. Ignore Maximum, he's just insulting everyone for no good reason.

Share This Page