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

That is not what I meant. I meant that the force of gravity is the catalyst for the Suns nuclear fusion.

Well, we can see brown dwarfs, they must be putting off radiation. By definition they do not have nuclear fusion. The Earth has a molten core, and it is not even close to the size of the Sun or a dwarf star. I don't think the Earths core will be running out of heat anytime soon. It would be impossible to have that much pressure from gravitational forces and then not have heat at a core of a star or planet. You can't ever have huge amounts of pressure and no heat.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's not correct, Layman.
Applying great pressure to compressible matter does heat that matter.
But when the heat radiates away, the pressure remains.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Such idealizations are routinely made to avoid needless 'chaff', but I accept this is all going over your head unfortunately. Therefore not worth commenting on the rest because we are stuck in that merry-go-round situation mentioned in an earlier post. I suggest just to try following whatever hopefully useful response eventuates from my below posting.

Try e.g. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes I'd say you have gone ostentatious with that Sartre bit. Even after a quick read here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre I'm none the wiser as to what such a 'moment' really should mean. Nor whether I was in that category of nutty folks. That last matter is though answered further down in what seems to be your characteristically oblique manner.

A strange request given I am the one asking you! Nevertheless, let's just say I tried to make it reasonably structured and coherent and therefore deserving of a response in kind. But I got nothing of the kind back from that 'educated professionals' category. Not earlier and not now. There was smart arse vitriol, followed by inscrutable and very likely feigned 'indignation'+ veiled threat of reporting for - what exactly? Don't know because when the explicit request was made for clarification there was no taking me up on it. Followed by imo a hugely ironic charge of 'hand-wavey garbage'. And now, well a cryptic "Ah . . . I remember it now. So that's what you meant. . .". And that is it - as 'detailed point-by-point response' as it gets!!! Nice. An amazing contrast imo to the comparatively royal treatment meted out to A-Wal in his two recent 'wall of text' postings here. I have nothing against A-wal and merely note the markedly different responses - patient and detailed point-by-point in his case vs an all-round but never detailed savaging in mine. I'm a big boy now and no tears being shed but still it is more disheartening than merely perplexing to cop what I have. Oh sorry - I've overstepped a little and included some more than merely characterizing my post. Have included characterizing the responses as well.

Coupled with your further comment below: "My constructive feedback is that it's pseudoscience", you have actually labelled me as a nut. Why beat around the bush so much? A simple 'yes' back when I asked a week ago would have sufficed!

Rrright. And if a vague accusation, lacking any specific detail, of pseudoscience is made, you don't think it's reasonable that the accused might just have grounds for feeling indignant? Precisely because there was no real attempted substantiation of the charge? So if said accused dares to subsequently express any protest at such treatment, this in your book automatically boosts the accused into that second more serious category of 'going postal' -> crankster? Wow, I sure hope there's room for due process in all this. Any lawyers allowed in one's defense here at SF?

Have not the foggiest what that bit means. The context of my question was straight to the point and clear - was I a nut in your book. We know now, but a snaky path to get to it.

Only to the extent it finally, circuitously answers the 'nut' categorization question. Otherwise no, totally useless since as per comments above, there is precisely zero detail and thus zero justification to that accusation. It's in keeping maybe (just surmising here) with peer/friends list solidarity for sure, but I expect more, much more from someone I imagine has a decent university education.

I won't attempt to disentangle that bit. Will just issue you with a challenge. [Edit: actually, reissue; the challenge was already given in #86] You accuse me of being a nut spouting pseudoscience. Back it up this time with an actual, detailed critique of #19 (and one could throw in say #85 as minor elaboration of #19). Along the lines of the royal treatment meted out to A-wal. Point-by-point detailed. Got that clear? Now if you're not up to it, it's fine to just say so. Still, I would find it hard to believe that a university trained academic could be baffled by what a toroidal solenoid is or why that geometry was picked (big hint - think demagnetization factor). Or be baffled by the concept of magnetic saturation, or of interaction energy involving superposed fields. And please feel perfectly free to query me on any particular details in #19 etc. that are not clear enough - I mean honestly not clear enough!

You claim I've got it all wrong. Quite possibly so. But then show this is the case - show precisely how conservation of energy all pans out in the end in given or similar scenario. Since you know I'm wrong, you must know how and where I'm wrong, right? (remember this line from last time round?) HOW ABOUT ACTUAL DETAILS THIS TIME!!!! And if you really feel the need to construct your own version of the general scenario - whether involving ferromagnetic media or say a superconducting loop current - go ahead. I'll play along with that tactic if need be. The one tactic I will not play along with is evasiveness and dis-ingenuousness.

But hey there's no gun to your head here. Just an appeal. To put up or shut up when it comes to actually justifying that accusation of nut/pseudoscience.
One more thing. Mind explaining just why has it taken a whole week to respond to my #86? Seems kind of odd timing.
Cheers.

 

OK. That's not a traditional use of the word, but that's not too much of a stretch.

We can only see the hot ones. The cold ones are too cold to see.

Sure you can. Compressing something heats it, but once you stop compressing it the heating stops.

Note that the TEMPERATURE of a core can be significantly higher than the surface of a planet. Take Jupiter; its surface is around -145C but its core might be as high as 30,000C. This isn't because any heat is being continuously created at the center; it is due to the ideal gas law, PV=nRT. Higher pressure equal higher temperatures. (And of course temperature does not equal heat.)

 

I suppose you know of some mathmatically theory that allows high pressures on a system that then wouldn't have to be hot?

 

This is simple enough that it doesn't need maths to describe (unless you want some quantities for time, temperature, and pressure, of course).

Hot things radiate energy and cool down.

 

Higher pressure equals higher temperature or higher density (or both).
Adiabatic (fast) compression raises both temperature and density, without gaining or losing heat.
Isothermal (slow) compression raises density without changing temperature, and loses heat.

 

not really, i just don't understand the math too well.

yeah, i googled her name when i ran across it in your previous post.

if you think you have found something then you need to see how to extract it somehow.
frankly i feel your source is actually the apparent power of the coil.
the true power is the source voltage times source current, this is the max power that is truly used by the circuit.
i believe that somehow you are converting apparent power into a magnetic field and i'm not sure you can do that.

 

True, but with constant source of pressure acting on it, it would not cool down no matter how much it radiated. If you apply pressure to something it will get hot, it will put off heat, if the pressure remains it will still be hot.

 

Again, no. Do you really think that if you compress a tank of air it will "put off heat" forever? Can you think of a basic law of thermo that would violate?

(If you really think that compression causes something to become a heat source, go to any SCUBA store and watch them fill a tank. Then observe the tank over the next week. Record the temperature. Let us know what you discover.)

 

I use to work with a helium tank and it never really seemed to get that cold for being a big hunk of metal. We never really kept the heater running during off hours. I think it would be strange that it always stayed around room temperature. Metal tends to get colder than room temperature. It is a good conductor of heat so it goes out of it better.

 

Then do the experiment and let us know what you discover. I think you might be surprised

(BTW metal does not get colder than room temperature. It just feels colder because it conducts heat away from your 95F hand into the 72F ambient environment more quickly.)

 

Then what post my results on youtube? I couldn't think of a bigger waste of time. Then I guess that would mean that the helium tank was actually higher than room temperature. You should try to surprise yourself, I don't think they had SCUBA store's when the laws of thermodynamics was discovered. I dought this experiment was ever actually done.

 

What billvon said. This is something you can test by experiment.

Again, what billvon said. This is something you can test by measuring the actual temperatures.

 

No, just learn from it. That's the best result of an experiment.

I'm a SCUBA diver and have done it dozens of times. The tanks are hot when you fill them - and then cool down to room temperature when they are stored. I use this trick to my advantage when transfilling oxygen tanks.

 

I don't think I could because someone always has to turn the air conditioning off, so I wouldn't be able to keep the experiment at a constant temperature because I am not the one that pays the bill!

 

But do they ever get cold to the touch like an open empty tank would? I don't recall that ever happening with a helium tank.

 

Checking theory against reality is the opposite of a waste of time!
You do it so that you'll know what actually happens. That's what experiments are for.
You don't have to post on Youtube, or even let us know the results.
The goal is for you to test your theories:
- Does metal actually get colder than room temperature?
- Do pressurized tanks actually stay warmer than unpressurized tanks?

Perhaps you'll be the first.
Or perhaps not. You might enjoy reading about Robert Boyle, an alchemist and avid thinker and experimenter, who lived in the 1600s and worked unfettered by the 350 years of scientific discoveries made since then that modern scientist wanna-be's have to cover before they can contribute something new.

 

But that would mean that it is only classical physics, how could that have anything to do with the modern physics that we have now???