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

The laws of physics don't change.
Boyle's law is just as true today as it was 350 years ago, or 350 million years ago, or will be 350 million years in the future.

The particular physics we're talking about (changing pressure, constant temperature) was discovered that long ago. Our understanding has developed (particularly in the 1800s, with the formulation of the theory of thermodynamics), but we can still repeat experiments done hundreds of years ago and get the same results.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is the thermodynamics of gases as derived from the the ideal gas equation. This is discussed in the first few weeks of an introductory thermodynamics course, as it is foundational knowledge. What's being discussed here specifically is adiabatic compression, followed by cooling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process

In short, pressure energy is a form of potential energy and temperature is a measure of kinetic energy. When you actively compress a gas, this imparts both kinetic and potential energy to the gas, both heating and compressing it. But once it is compressed, there is nothing stopping you from cooling it back down. This is exactly what the outside half of an air conditioner does (compress, then cool).

The universe hasn't changed, so why would that knowledge be obsolete? It was correct 350 years ago, so it is correct today!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Funny, I have recently come under the impression that classical physics has become completely obsolete and it would be useless to try and derive any new theories based on it. I don't know if I could so willingly trust experiments done 350 years ago, for we all we know it was discovered by a group of guys chatting with each other while they all wore white wigs. The laws of physics has changed a lot over the past hundred years, I am surprised this one has stood the test of time. I worry that is only because of the I said so arguement, I still don't see how pressure being applied could only create so much heat and then not create heat anymore. The Earth has been around for millions of years, and it still has a molten core. I don't see how millions of tons of rock sitting on something could up and decide that it doesn't need to be hot anymore because of that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No one has asked you to trust that experiment.
We've suggested you do it yourself.

The laws of physics don't change; our understanding of them does.
And when old understanding becomes superseded, it's often a matter of precision in extreme cases. The new laws still have to match the old laws in the non-extreme situation.

I think that almost all the physics taught in high schools was discovered over 100 years ago.

I understand that you don't see how it could work... but right now we're establishing what does actually happen to the temperature of a tank of compressed gas.
You can't do that by just talking about it - you have to go and find out.

 

Yes.

You recall incorrectly, then. Again, if you doubt this, run an experiment. If you don't care to find out, that's fine too.

 

PV=nRT

Most of the heat of the Earth's core comes from the decay of radioactive isotopes. This releases energy in the form of heat. And that has nothing to do with "compression causing heat."

 

So then how could pressure have a large value in this equation and not have a high value for heat?

 

Because there is no expression for heat in that equation, just temperature. And again heat and temperature are NOT the same thing. Do you understand that?

 

Assuming you mean "how could pressure have a large value in this equation and not have a high value for temperature?", then try a low value for volume.

 

Huh? How can you say that when you were recently participating in the "Speed of Force" thread? The primary focus of the discussion is Newton's laws, which were published in 1687. They are still highly valid for a wide variety of situations.

Not sure what you mean by that. What new theories are being derived by who? Certainly not in this thread - this is all simple, ancient knowledge we're discussing here.

If you double P by halving V, the right side of the equation is not affected. You really should learn about the ideal gas law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law

 

With the same volume, last time I checked the planet or gas giants where not shrinking. To me the equation looks like it says if it has the same volume and same pressure than it would have the same temperature. Having an increase in temperature wouldn't change the number of atoms or moles in it.

 

Seemed like a good come back, I have heard it many times before. These would just be another example where it was used to disprove a theory. I thought it would apply here very well, since the time these discoveries where made they didn't know much about science that we do now. For instance, the Earth has a molten core.

 

As they cool, they will shrink. They won't shrink much (the equation we're discussing is about ideal gases, not planets), and they won't shrink quickly.

Do you have some reason to suspect that a planet can't shrink as it cools?

 

That would be news to me, I have heard that the moon is falling because lasers measure a shorter distance from the Earth and the Moon. Never heard that as being a suspected reason for it though.

 

From Wikipedia:
========
Jupiter still radiates more heat than it receives from the Sun; the amount of heat produced inside the planet is similar to the total solar radiation it receives. This additional heat radiation is generated by the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism through adiabatic contraction. This process results in the planet shrinking by about 2 cm each year. When it was first formed, Jupiter was much hotter and was about twice its current diameter.
========

 

And we also have astronomical evidence of this by observing stars in our own galaxy.

 

As per opening address in #19, I tried to make it all as descriptive as possible with almost zero math. The only math was that in those two expressions (1) and (2) (the ~ symbol btw just meant 'proportional to'). Are you not up to understanding that quite simple part? Simple yet profound.

Examples of possible 'extraction' procedures are provided in the last part of #19 - basically gedanken experiments with no practicality implied, as was subsequently made clear to you most recently in #85.

And the not-so-merry-go-round just keeps running full circle. We have gone over all this time and time again. May I suggest the root problem is, as that little 'test' linked to in #69 was meant to indicate (here it is again: http://www.canaryzoo.com/humour alzheimer eye test.htm), is a psychological blocking mechanism. You, like it seems everyone else here, has been conditioned to believe that the conservation of energy-momentum law is especially Nature's Absolute Divine Truth - no exceptions! Try freeing your mind to the possibility it just aint necessarily so. If you can truly do that, then instead of this continual attitude of trying to find 'the flaw' in my reasoning, just maybe you will start to realize 'the flaw' quite possibly lies elsewhere.

 

Yikes! The moon is receding, not falling. How can someone be wrong about everything? I would think you'd accidentally be right about at least some of the things you think you know about science!

 

that's because you apparently do not know what heat is.
pressure induced heat is a very simple concept, the reason heat "goes away" is just as simple.
it's hard to believe you worked with high pressure gases such as helium.
how did you "work" with this gas anyway?
fill balloons at a department store?
i don't mean to be rude but your quote above seems so . . . childish.

 

i know how coils work and how they do it.
there is also the little snafu of this setup not working with a permanent magnet.
that alone says your results are directly due to the coil and its fluctuating field.
another red flag occurs in the fact you are using theoretical conditions, lossless wire, perfect coil/ core coupling, and a "perfect" core.
i still say and maintain, that your results are directly due to the apparent power of the coil.