FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
Perpetual Motion Machines
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3 [37 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:13 am    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:sb5u9215sbbbpc37kehqch2d7p49iqgn1m@4ax.com...
Quote:
If gravitational energy held the gold black hole
together, the 'black hole' would have been stable.

No. "Hawking radiation" evaporates black holes, and this is not
fringe science, but fairly well accepted. And in agreement with
the observation that the RHIC produces "fireballs".

Hawking? Don't you wonder:
Why the particle-antiparticle pair(s) appear at the event horizon
instead of near the greatest gravity?

They aren't -- *more* are produced there where the
stress-energy of space is greater. The pairs distant
from the horizon invariably self anihilate. Only the
ones cuddled up to the horizon have a chance to become
real particles.

Quote:

Why gravity increases the frequency that particle-antiparticle pairs
exist, without gravity being the source of particle-antiparticle
energy?

Ultimately the gravitational field is the source as the
energy to make the escaping particle a real particle
is debited from the black hole by that particle's pair
which remains behind and has negative energy.

Quote:

If the mass within the black hole is completely converted to photons,
gravity would be zero, because photons have no mass. If a black hole
completely retains gravity, then mass did not convert to photons.
Singularity has mass.

Energy in the form of photons has mass. Where've you been
for all of 20th century physics?

[snip]
Back to top
Rich1191
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 1:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:13:14 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

Quote:
richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:sb5u9215sbbbpc37kehqch2d7p49iqgn1m@4ax.com...
If gravitational energy held the gold black hole
together, the 'black hole' would have been stable.

No. "Hawking radiation" evaporates black holes, and this is not
fringe science, but fairly well accepted. And in agreement with
the observation that the RHIC produces "fireballs".

Hawking? Don't you wonder:
Why the particle-antiparticle pair(s) appear at the event horizon
instead of near the greatest gravity?

They aren't -- *more* are produced there where the
stress-energy of space is greater. The pairs distant
from the horizon invariably self anihilate. Only the
ones cuddled up to the horizon have a chance to become
real particles.

Don't the particle and antiparticle have the same mass? Do you have
to assume the pair has a radius between them, the radius is orientated
the proper direction and gravity has enough time to differentially
pull them apart, and the time that they are pulled apart is at the
event horizon?
Quote:


Why gravity increases the frequency that particle-antiparticle pairs
exist, without gravity being the source of particle-antiparticle
energy?

Ultimately the gravitational field is the source as the
energy to make the escaping particle a real particle
is debited from the black hole by that particle's pair
which remains behind and has negative energy.

Are you sure negative energy exists? What are the properties of this

negative energy and why would the the negative energy travel to the
black hole instead of to the energy rich area outside the event
horizon?
Quote:

If the mass within the black hole is completely converted to photons,
gravity would be zero, because photons have no mass. If a black hole
completely retains gravity, then mass did not convert to photons.
Singularity has mass.

Energy in the form of photons has mass. Where've you been
for all of 20th century physics?

Gravity is an energy, photons are energy. The properties of photons

and the properties of gravity greatly differ and I doubt they combine.
Mass, like the mass of an electron can hold many types of kinetic and
electromagnetic energy.

If light had mass, then the variety of properties that mass can
retain, can be retained by light. One of these properties is
acceleration by gravity. Exposure to gravity could change the speed
of light in a vacuum.
Quote:
[snip]
Back to top
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:iqefa2he7a68vjghgeefre8u39o3trcc8d@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:13:14 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:sb5u9215sbbbpc37kehqch2d7p49iqgn1m@4ax.com...
If gravitational energy held the gold black hole
together, the 'black hole' would have been stable.

No. "Hawking radiation" evaporates black holes, and this is not
fringe science, but fairly well accepted. And in agreement with
the observation that the RHIC produces "fireballs".

Hawking? Don't you wonder:
Why the particle-antiparticle pair(s) appear at the event horizon
instead of near the greatest gravity?

They aren't -- *more* are produced there where the
stress-energy of space is greater. The pairs distant
from the horizon invariably self anihilate. Only the
ones cuddled up to the horizon have a chance to become
real particles.

Don't the particle and antiparticle have the same mass?

Yes.

Quote:
Do you have
to assume the pair has a radius between them, the radius is orientated
the proper direction and gravity has enough time to differentially
pull them apart, and the time that they are pulled apart is at the
event horizon?

Sure. Note that it is also possible for one of the pair
to be *created* below the horizin while the other is
created (very) nearby above it.

Quote:


Why gravity increases the frequency that particle-antiparticle pairs
exist, without gravity being the source of particle-antiparticle
energy?

Ultimately the gravitational field is the source as the
energy to make the escaping particle a real particle
is debited from the black hole by that particle's pair
which remains behind and has negative energy.

Are you sure negative energy exists? What are the properties of this
negative energy and why would the the negative energy travel to the
black hole instead of to the energy rich area outside the event
horizon?

Negative energy exists -- it's an accounting scheme. Look
at potential versus kinetic versus binding energies. The
energy to spawn the particle pairs comes from the stress-energy
(see General Relativity) due to the gravitational field.

Quote:

If the mass within the black hole is completely converted to photons,
gravity would be zero, because photons have no mass. If a black hole
completely retains gravity, then mass did not convert to photons.
Singularity has mass.

Energy in the form of photons has mass. Where've you been
for all of 20th century physics?

Gravity is an energy, photons are energy.

Gravity is a field. Photons carry energy in the form of momentum
(both linear and angular).

Quote:
The properties of photons
and the properties of gravity greatly differ and I doubt they combine.

Energy has mass, as has been confirmed empirically.

Quote:
Mass, like the mass of an electron can hold many types of kinetic and
electromagnetic energy.

Charge is not energy. You get electromagnetic energy by
putting it in a field (virtual photons) or by wiggling
a charge (producing real photons).

Quote:

If light had mass, then the variety of properties that mass can
retain, can be retained by light. One of these properties is
acceleration by gravity.

Light is accelerated by gravity -- it changes direction and
bends around gravitational fields. Note that it does not
change *speed*, it changes direction and energy.

Quote:
Exposure to gravity could change the speed
of light in a vacuum.

Nope. The speed of light is constant, but its velocity
is not.
Back to top
Rich1191
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

[snip]
Quote:
Energy in the form of photons has mass. Where've you been
for all of 20th century physics?

Gravity is an energy, photons are energy. The properties of photons
and the properties of gravity greatly differ and I doubt they combine.
Mass, like the mass of an electron can hold many types of kinetic and
electromagnetic energy.

If light had mass, then the variety of properties that mass can
retain, can be retained by light. One of these properties is
acceleration by gravity. Exposure to gravity could change the speed
of light in a vacuum.

PS: Mass greater than infinitly small, traveling the speed of light
has infinite energy - even if the mass's energy only equals gamma ray
energy. Just how much mass do you claim light has?
Quote:
[snip]
Back to top
Rich1191
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 11:27:06 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

Quote:
richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:iqefa2he7a68vjghgeefre8u39o3trcc8d@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:13:14 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:sb5u9215sbbbpc37kehqch2d7p49iqgn1m@4ax.com...
If gravitational energy held the gold black hole
together, the 'black hole' would have been stable.

No. "Hawking radiation" evaporates black holes, and this is not
fringe science, but fairly well accepted. And in agreement with
the observation that the RHIC produces "fireballs".

Hawking? Don't you wonder:
Why the particle-antiparticle pair(s) appear at the event horizon
instead of near the greatest gravity?

They aren't -- *more* are produced there where the
stress-energy of space is greater. The pairs distant
from the horizon invariably self anihilate. Only the
ones cuddled up to the horizon have a chance to become
real particles.

Don't the particle and antiparticle have the same mass?

Yes.

Do you have
to assume the pair has a radius between them, the radius is orientated
the proper direction and gravity has enough time to differentially
pull them apart, and the time that they are pulled apart is at the
event horizon?

Sure. Note that it is also possible for one of the pair
to be *created* below the horizin while the other is
created (very) nearby above it.

How did the pair member beyond the horizon get escape velocity?
Quote:

Why gravity increases the frequency that particle-antiparticle pairs
exist, without gravity being the source of particle-antiparticle
energy?

Ultimately the gravitational field is the source as the
energy to make the escaping particle a real particle
is debited from the black hole by that particle's pair
which remains behind and has negative energy.

Are you sure negative energy exists? What are the properties of this
negative energy and why would the the negative energy travel to the
black hole instead of to the energy rich area outside the event
horizon?

Negative energy exists -- it's an accounting scheme. Look
at potential versus kinetic versus binding energies. The
energy to spawn the particle pairs comes from the stress-energy
(see General Relativity) due to the gravitational field.


If the mass within the black hole is completely converted to photons,
gravity would be zero, because photons have no mass. If a black hole
completely retains gravity, then mass did not convert to photons.
Singularity has mass.

Energy in the form of photons has mass. Where've you been
for all of 20th century physics?

Gravity is an energy, photons are energy.

Gravity is a field. Photons carry energy in the form of momentum
(both linear and angular).

Magnetism is a field, but field strength and total magnetic energy are
proportional to current. Similarly, gravity is a field but the
gravitational energy of an atom is finite.
Quote:

The properties of photons
and the properties of gravity greatly differ and I doubt they combine.

Energy has mass, as has been confirmed empirically.

Mass, like the mass of an electron can hold many types of kinetic and
electromagnetic energy.

Charge is not energy. You get electromagnetic energy by
putting it in a field (virtual photons) or by wiggling
a charge (producing real photons).

Why isn't the electrostatic ENERGY of an electron comparable to

magnetic energy of a current carrying circuit?
Quote:

If light had mass, then the variety of properties that mass can
retain, can be retained by light. One of these properties is
acceleration by gravity.

Light is accelerated by gravity -- it changes direction and
bends around gravitational fields. Note that it does not
change *speed*, it changes direction and energy.

What is it about light's gravity that limits the acceleration of light

to perpendicular acceleration?

I thought light doesn't have kinetic energy because light does not
have mass. Even if perpendicular acceleration changed light's
direction, how would this change in kinetic energy cause a change in
light's electromagnetic energy? Wouldn't that be like changing the
mass or electrostatic charge on an electron by accelerating the
electron to near light speed?

Quote:
Exposure to gravity could change the speed
of light in a vacuum.

Nope. The speed of light is constant, but its velocity
is not.
Back to top
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 3:45 am    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:atqfa213jdmb2anj2f484trt2ahv6mi65r@4ax.com...
Quote:
[snip]
Energy in the form of photons has mass. Where've you been
for all of 20th century physics?

Gravity is an energy, photons are energy. The properties of photons
and the properties of gravity greatly differ and I doubt they combine.
Mass, like the mass of an electron can hold many types of kinetic and
electromagnetic energy.

If light had mass, then the variety of properties that mass can
retain, can be retained by light. One of these properties is
acceleration by gravity. Exposure to gravity could change the speed
of light in a vacuum.

PS: Mass greater than infinitly small, traveling the speed of light
has infinite energy - even if the mass's energy only equals gamma ray
energy. Just how much mass do you claim light has?

No rest mass, but the energy of the photon has
mass if it's measured in a center of momentum
frame. E = h*f, m = E/c^2.
Back to top
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 4:00 am    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:2srfa2d7i6vnt42kbansnt3gupb3unvqe6@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 11:27:06 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:iqefa2he7a68vjghgeefre8u39o3trcc8d@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:13:14 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:sb5u9215sbbbpc37kehqch2d7p49iqgn1m@4ax.com...
If gravitational energy held the gold black hole
together, the 'black hole' would have been stable.

No. "Hawking radiation" evaporates black holes, and this is not
fringe science, but fairly well accepted. And in agreement with
the observation that the RHIC produces "fireballs".

Hawking? Don't you wonder:
Why the particle-antiparticle pair(s) appear at the event horizon
instead of near the greatest gravity?

They aren't -- *more* are produced there where the
stress-energy of space is greater. The pairs distant
from the horizon invariably self anihilate. Only the
ones cuddled up to the horizon have a chance to become
real particles.

Don't the particle and antiparticle have the same mass?

Yes.

Do you have
to assume the pair has a radius between them, the radius is orientated
the proper direction and gravity has enough time to differentially
pull them apart, and the time that they are pulled apart is at the
event horizon?

Sure. Note that it is also possible for one of the pair
to be *created* below the horizin while the other is
created (very) nearby above it.

How did the pair member beyond the horizon get escape velocity?

Luck of the draw. Particles come into being with all
sorts of possible mass/energy combinations, the most
likely total depending upon the available energy from
the stress energy in the local space. More curvature
makes for more energy availability and larger, more
energetic particle creation. That's why smaller
black holes are hotter than large ones and radiate
faster.

Quote:

Why gravity increases the frequency that particle-antiparticle pairs
exist, without gravity being the source of particle-antiparticle
energy?

Ultimately the gravitational field is the source as the
energy to make the escaping particle a real particle
is debited from the black hole by that particle's pair
which remains behind and has negative energy.

Are you sure negative energy exists? What are the properties of this
negative energy and why would the the negative energy travel to the
black hole instead of to the energy rich area outside the event
horizon?

Negative energy exists -- it's an accounting scheme. Look
at potential versus kinetic versus binding energies. The
energy to spawn the particle pairs comes from the stress-energy
(see General Relativity) due to the gravitational field.


If the mass within the black hole is completely converted to photons,
gravity would be zero, because photons have no mass. If a black hole
completely retains gravity, then mass did not convert to photons.
Singularity has mass.

Energy in the form of photons has mass. Where've you been
for all of 20th century physics?

Gravity is an energy, photons are energy.

Gravity is a field. Photons carry energy in the form of momentum
(both linear and angular).

Magnetism is a field, but field strength and total magnetic energy are
proportional to current. Similarly, gravity is a field but the
gravitational energy of an atom is finite.

Um, yes, so?

A magnetic field produced a current is actually being produced
by moving charges that comprise the current. A lone electron
hasn't much in the way of a magnetic field, but if you push
it with enough kinetic energy that lone electric charge can
radiate an intense electromagnetic field.

Quote:

The properties of photons
and the properties of gravity greatly differ and I doubt they combine.

Energy has mass, as has been confirmed empirically.

Mass, like the mass of an electron can hold many types of kinetic and
electromagnetic energy.

Charge is not energy. You get electromagnetic energy by
putting it in a field (virtual photons) or by wiggling
a charge (producing real photons).

Why isn't the electrostatic ENERGY of an electron comparable to
magnetic energy of a current carrying circuit?

You're doing work on the charges in a circuit in order to
establish the field. If the potential difference that
maintains the current is removed, the field collapses.

Electric charges require no work in order to maintain
their field indefinitely.

Quote:

If light had mass, then the variety of properties that mass can
retain, can be retained by light. One of these properties is
acceleration by gravity.

Light is accelerated by gravity -- it changes direction and
bends around gravitational fields. Note that it does not
change *speed*, it changes direction and energy.

What is it about light's gravity that limits the acceleration of light
to perpendicular acceleration?

Light has no rest mass and always moves at C. When gravity
works on light as the light moves from one gravitational
potential to another it adds or subtracts from the photon's
energy content (momentum) and the light changes frequency
rather than speed.

Quote:

I thought light doesn't have kinetic energy because light does not
have mass. Even if perpendicular acceleration changed light's
direction, how would this change in kinetic energy cause a change in
light's electromagnetic energy? Wouldn't that be like changing the
mass or electrostatic charge on an electron by accelerating the
electron to near light speed?

See above. Photons carry momentum.
Back to top
Rich1191
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:00:47 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

Quote:
richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:2srfa2d7i6vnt42kbansnt3gupb3unvqe6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 2 Jul 2006 11:27:06 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:iqefa2he7a68vjghgeefre8u39o3trcc8d@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:13:14 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:sb5u9215sbbbpc37kehqch2d7p49iqgn1m@4ax.com...
If gravitational energy held the gold black hole
together, the 'black hole' would have been stable.

No. "Hawking radiation" evaporates black holes, and this is not
fringe science, but fairly well accepted. And in agreement with
the observation that the RHIC produces "fireballs".

Hawking? Don't you wonder:
Why the particle-antiparticle pair(s) appear at the event horizon
instead of near the greatest gravity?

They aren't -- *more* are produced there where the
stress-energy of space is greater. The pairs distant
from the horizon invariably self anihilate. Only the
ones cuddled up to the horizon have a chance to become
real particles.

Don't the particle and antiparticle have the same mass?

Yes.

Do you have
to assume the pair has a radius between them, the radius is orientated
the proper direction and gravity has enough time to differentially
pull them apart, and the time that they are pulled apart is at the
event horizon?

Sure. Note that it is also possible for one of the pair
to be *created* below the horizin while the other is
created (very) nearby above it.

How did the pair member beyond the horizon get escape velocity?

Luck of the draw. Particles come into being with all
sorts of possible mass/energy combinations, the most
likely total depending upon the available energy from
the stress energy in the local space. More curvature
makes for more energy availability and larger, more
energetic particle creation. That's why smaller
black holes are hotter than large ones and radiate
faster.

There is may be a conservation of energy problem. Attraction to the

particle below the horizon causes the particle above the horizon to
need greater than gravitational escape velocity.
Quote:

Why gravity increases the frequency that particle-antiparticle pairs
exist, without gravity being the source of particle-antiparticle
energy?

Ultimately the gravitational field is the source as the
energy to make the escaping particle a real particle
is debited from the black hole by that particle's pair
which remains behind and has negative energy.

Are you sure negative energy exists? What are the properties of this
negative energy and why would the the negative energy travel to the
black hole instead of to the energy rich area outside the event
horizon?

Negative energy exists -- it's an accounting scheme. Look
at potential versus kinetic versus binding energies. The
energy to spawn the particle pairs comes from the stress-energy
(see General Relativity) due to the gravitational field.


If the mass within the black hole is completely converted to photons,
gravity would be zero, because photons have no mass. If a black hole
completely retains gravity, then mass did not convert to photons.
Singularity has mass.

Energy in the form of photons has mass. Where've you been
for all of 20th century physics?

Gravity is an energy, photons are energy.

Gravity is a field. Photons carry energy in the form of momentum
(both linear and angular).

Magnetism is a field, but field strength and total magnetic energy are
proportional to current. Similarly, gravity is a field but the
gravitational energy of an atom is finite.

Um, yes, so?

A magnetic field produced a current is actually being produced
by moving charges that comprise the current. A lone electron
hasn't much in the way of a magnetic field, but if you push
it with enough kinetic energy that lone electric charge can
radiate an intense electromagnetic field.

A magnetic field requires a conductor in a closed circuit. Even if

the electron travels in a circle producing synchrotron radiation, a
single electron cannot produce current or magnetism. Total magnetic
ENERGY really is the energy predicted by the current & loops of
conductor. Infinite energy of gravitational, electrostatic, or
magnetic fields is simply a mathematical extrapolation that is not
based on reality.
Quote:

The properties of photons
and the properties of gravity greatly differ and I doubt they combine.

Energy has mass, as has been confirmed empirically.

Mass, like the mass of an electron can hold many types of kinetic and
electromagnetic energy.

Charge is not energy. You get electromagnetic energy by
putting it in a field (virtual photons) or by wiggling
a charge (producing real photons).

Why isn't the electrostatic ENERGY of an electron comparable to
magnetic energy of a current carrying circuit?

You're doing work on the charges in a circuit in order to
establish the field. If the potential difference that
maintains the current is removed, the field collapses.

Application of a magnetic field does not increase the kinetic energy

of an electron (Lorentz force law) within a superconductor, yet
produces magnetism. Perhaps that is another idea for a perpetual
motion machine.

Quote:
Electric charges require no work in order to maintain
their field indefinitely.

Just as a permanent magnet holds magnetism indefinitely?

If light had mass, then the variety of properties that mass can
retain, can be retained by light. One of these properties is
acceleration by gravity.

Light is accelerated by gravity -- it changes direction and
bends around gravitational fields. Note that it does not
change *speed*, it changes direction and energy.

What is it about light's gravity that limits the acceleration of light
to perpendicular acceleration?

Light has no rest mass and always moves at C. When gravity
works on light as the light moves from one gravitational
potential to another it adds or subtracts from the photon's
energy content (momentum) and the light changes frequency
rather than speed.

Are you saying light has gravitational energy AND photon energy, or

are you saying photon energy CONVERTS to gravitational energy, or
what?
Quote:

I thought light doesn't have kinetic energy because light does not
have mass. Even if perpendicular acceleration changed light's
direction, how would this change in kinetic energy cause a change in
light's electromagnetic energy? Wouldn't that be like changing the
mass or electrostatic charge on an electron by accelerating the
electron to near light speed?

See above. Photons carry momentum.
Back to top
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Mon Jul 03, 2006 2:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:od4ia2pjm45s6pnq192887mjmb7ppk5oob@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:00:47 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:


[snip]

Quote:

Luck of the draw. Particles come into being with all
sorts of possible mass/energy combinations, the most
likely total depending upon the available energy from
the stress energy in the local space. More curvature
makes for more energy availability and larger, more
energetic particle creation. That's why smaller
black holes are hotter than large ones and radiate
faster.

There is may be a conservation of energy problem. Attraction to the
particle below the horizon causes the particle above the horizon to
need greater than gravitational escape velocity.

So? The particles are created with a range of energies.
Those with enough KE to escape, will. Those without, won't.
I don't see any conservation of energy problkem here.


[snip]

Quote:

A magnetic field produced a current is actually being produced
by moving charges that comprise the current. A lone electron
hasn't much in the way of a magnetic field, but if you push
it with enough kinetic energy that lone electric charge can
radiate an intense electromagnetic field.

A magnetic field requires a conductor in a closed circuit. Even if
the electron travels in a circle producing synchrotron radiation, a
single electron cannot produce current or magnetism. Total magnetic
ENERGY really is the energy predicted by the current & loops of
conductor. Infinite energy of gravitational, electrostatic, or
magnetic fields is simply a mathematical extrapolation that is not
based on reality.

A magnetic field does not require a conductor in a closed
circuit. Just moving charges will do (see Maxwell).
Conductors are an engineering convenience.

Single elctrons in motion can certainly produce a magnetic field,
and the definition of current is the movement of charge from one
point to another. A single electron counts as a charge.

Who (besides yourself) has said anything about "infintie energy"?

[snip]

Quote:

You're doing work on the charges in a circuit in order to
establish the field. If the potential difference that
maintains the current is removed, the field collapses.

Application of a magnetic field does not increase the kinetic energy
of an electron (Lorentz force law) within a superconductor, yet
produces magnetism. Perhaps that is another idea for a perpetual
motion machine.

A superconductor with a constant current flowing in it is
surrounded by a static magnetic field. Add an external
field and you get the usual effects (such as the Hall
effect). Add too much of an external field and you'll
"break" the superconductor. Energy is conserved.

Quote:

Electric charges require no work in order to maintain
their field indefinitely.

Just as a permanent magnet holds magnetism indefinitely?

Provided that its magnetic domains remain aligned, yes.

[snip]

Quote:

Light has no rest mass and always moves at C. When gravity
works on light as the light moves from one gravitational
potential to another it adds or subtracts from the photon's
energy content (momentum) and the light changes frequency
rather than speed.

Are you saying light has gravitational energy AND photon energy, or
are you saying photon energy CONVERTS to gravitational energy, or
what?

Photons carry momentum. That's the form of energy they carry.
All energy affects space a la General Relativity via the
stress-energy tensor. Thus, all energy produces a gravitational
effect. There's no conversion required.
Back to top
Rich1191
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:18:52 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

Quote:
richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:od4ia2pjm45s6pnq192887mjmb7ppk5oob@4ax.com...
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:00:47 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:


[snip]


Luck of the draw. Particles come into being with all
sorts of possible mass/energy combinations, the most
likely total depending upon the available energy from
the stress energy in the local space. More curvature
makes for more energy availability and larger, more
energetic particle creation. That's why smaller
black holes are hotter than large ones and radiate
faster.

There is may be a conservation of energy problem. Attraction to the
particle below the horizon causes the particle above the horizon to
need greater than gravitational escape velocity.

So? The particles are created with a range of energies.
Those with enough KE to escape, will. Those without, won't.
I don't see any conservation of energy problkem here.

Should I assume that the sum of the kinetic energy the of the pair

plus the mass of the pair converted to energy nearly equals the total
energy within the black hole?
Quote:

[snip]


A magnetic field produced a current is actually being produced
by moving charges that comprise the current. A lone electron
hasn't much in the way of a magnetic field, but if you push
it with enough kinetic energy that lone electric charge can
radiate an intense electromagnetic field.

A magnetic field requires a conductor in a closed circuit. Even if
the electron travels in a circle producing synchrotron radiation, a
single electron cannot produce current or magnetism. Total magnetic
ENERGY really is the energy predicted by the current & loops of
conductor. Infinite energy of gravitational, electrostatic, or
magnetic fields is simply a mathematical extrapolation that is not
based on reality.

A magnetic field does not require a conductor in a closed
circuit. Just moving charges will do (see Maxwell).
Conductors are an engineering convenience.

When an electron moves in a circle, magnetic energy persists long
enough to accumulate, due to increased inductance. Magnetic field
intensity would be dependent on distance from the 'path', not
necessarily greater at the locus of the electron.

In an 'open' circuit, the linear electron travel path would be a
circle with infinite radius. Even distribution of magnetism along
this path makes the magnetic field at the electron virtually ZERO.
Quote:

Single elctrons in motion can certainly produce a magnetic field,
and the definition of current is the movement of charge from one
point to another. A single electron counts as a charge.

Try applying Kirchoff's law to a single electron.
Quote:

Who (besides yourself) has said anything about "infintie energy"?

The Rutherford gold backscatter experiment assumed a powerful

electrostatic field existed around a gold nucleus. Unless he had
independent proof that proton electrostatic energy is great enough to
cause the backscatter, he could not be sure that the backscatter was
not due to some other quantum effect.

Quote:
[snip]


You're doing work on the charges in a circuit in order to
establish the field. If the potential difference that
maintains the current is removed, the field collapses.

Application of a magnetic field does not increase the kinetic energy
of an electron (Lorentz force law) within a superconductor, yet
produces magnetism. Perhaps that is another idea for a perpetual
motion machine.

A superconductor with a constant current flowing in it is
surrounded by a static magnetic field. Add an external
field and you get the usual effects (such as the Hall
effect). Add too much of an external field and you'll
"break" the superconductor. Energy is conserved.

Conservation of energy? If a magnetic field CHANGES the path of an

electron, magnetic energy does not decrease and kinetic energy of the
electron does not increase. Are you drawing a parallel to the
influence of one magnetic field on another?

Isn't ALL current within a superconductor converted to magnetism?
Quote:

Electric charges require no work in order to maintain
their field indefinitely.

Just as a permanent magnet holds magnetism indefinitely?

Provided that its magnetic domains remain aligned, yes.

[snip]


Light has no rest mass and always moves at C. When gravity
works on light as the light moves from one gravitational
potential to another it adds or subtracts from the photon's
energy content (momentum) and the light changes frequency
rather than speed.

Are you saying light has gravitational energy AND photon energy, or
are you saying photon energy CONVERTS to gravitational energy, or
what?

Photons carry momentum. That's the form of energy they carry.
All energy affects space a la General Relativity via the
stress-energy tensor. Thus, all energy produces a gravitational
effect. There's no conversion required.

Perhaps we just disagree. I think a mass to photon (gamma ray)

conversion is measureable and occurs during deuterium decay. I think
a gamma ray to mass conversion does not ccur without a trigger - like
the gamma ray smashing into something.

Since gravity is just an energy (gravity is not mass), perhaps
gravitational energy could attach to other forms of energy - like
magnetism attaching to current.
>
Back to top
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:3lcja29bh068h8hq98ic0nsves26iiooai@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:18:52 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:od4ia2pjm45s6pnq192887mjmb7ppk5oob@4ax.com...
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:00:47 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:


[snip]


Luck of the draw. Particles come into being with all
sorts of possible mass/energy combinations, the most
likely total depending upon the available energy from
the stress energy in the local space. More curvature
makes for more energy availability and larger, more
energetic particle creation. That's why smaller
black holes are hotter than large ones and radiate
faster.

There is may be a conservation of energy problem. Attraction to the
particle below the horizon causes the particle above the horizon to
need greater than gravitational escape velocity.

So? The particles are created with a range of energies.
Those with enough KE to escape, will. Those without, won't.
I don't see any conservation of energy problem here.

Should I assume that the sum of the kinetic energy the of the pair
plus the mass of the pair converted to energy nearly equals the total
energy within the black hole?

It will be some minute portion of it for large black holes
(assuming that you are speaking of the energy equivalent
of the entire black hole).

Quote:

[snip]


A magnetic field produced a current is actually being produced
by moving charges that comprise the current. A lone electron
hasn't much in the way of a magnetic field, but if you push
it with enough kinetic energy that lone electric charge can
radiate an intense electromagnetic field.

A magnetic field requires a conductor in a closed circuit. Even if
the electron travels in a circle producing synchrotron radiation, a
single electron cannot produce current or magnetism. Total magnetic
ENERGY really is the energy predicted by the current & loops of
conductor. Infinite energy of gravitational, electrostatic, or
magnetic fields is simply a mathematical extrapolation that is not
based on reality.

A magnetic field does not require a conductor in a closed
circuit. Just moving charges will do (see Maxwell).
Conductors are an engineering convenience.

When an electron moves in a circle, magnetic energy persists long
enough to accumulate, due to increased inductance. Magnetic field
intensity would be dependent on distance from the 'path', not
necessarily greater at the locus of the electron.

That seems like so much word salad to me. Perhaps you
could clarify with the relevant equations.

Quote:

In an 'open' circuit, the linear electron travel path would be a
circle with infinite radius. Even distribution of magnetism along
this path makes the magnetic field at the electron virtually ZERO.

Yet Maxwell says this isn't so. Perhaps you are confusing
the electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by accelerated
charges (which propagates decoupled from the charge) with the
magnetic field that is associated with a moving charge?

Quote:

Single electrons in motion can certainly produce a magnetic field,
and the definition of current is the movement of charge from one
point to another. A single electron counts as a charge.

Try applying Kirchoff's law to a single electron.

Maxwell trumps Kirchoff when you're not dealing with
a closed circuit.

Quote:

Who (besides yourself) has said anything about "infinite energy"?

The Rutherford gold backscatter experiment assumed a powerful
electrostatic field existed around a gold nucleus. Unless he had
independent proof that proton electrostatic energy is great enough to
cause the backscatter, he could not be sure that the backscatter was
not due to some other quantum effect.

That doesn't address the "infinities" you mentioned.

Rutherford noted that the scattering agreed with a
model that comprised a very tiny, positively charged
nucleus and that electrons were negligibly small
negatively charged projectiles.

Quote:

[snip]


You're doing work on the charges in a circuit in order to
establish the field. If the potential difference that
maintains the current is removed, the field collapses.

Application of a magnetic field does not increase the kinetic energy
of an electron (Lorentz force law) within a superconductor, yet
produces magnetism. Perhaps that is another idea for a perpetual
motion machine.

A superconductor with a constant current flowing in it is
surrounded by a static magnetic field. Add an external
field and you get the usual effects (such as the Hall
effect). Add too much of an external field and you'll
"break" the superconductor. Energy is conserved.

Conservation of energy? If a magnetic field CHANGES the path of an
electron, magnetic energy does not decrease and kinetic energy of the
electron does not increase. Are you drawing a parallel to the
influence of one magnetic field on another?

In order to move the electron by *introducing* an external
field, work must be done to establish the field.

Quote:

Isn't ALL current within a superconductor converted to magnetism?

Current is the motion of charges. What do you mean by current
being converted to magnetism? Are electrons magically transformed
into magnetic monopoles?

Quote:

Electric charges require no work in order to maintain
their field indefinitely.

Just as a permanent magnet holds magnetism indefinitely?

Provided that its magnetic domains remain aligned, yes.

[snip]


Light has no rest mass and always moves at C. When gravity
works on light as the light moves from one gravitational
potential to another it adds or subtracts from the photon's
energy content (momentum) and the light changes frequency
rather than speed.

Are you saying light has gravitational energy AND photon energy, or
are you saying photon energy CONVERTS to gravitational energy, or
what?

Photons carry momentum. That's the form of energy they carry.
All energy affects space a la General Relativity via the
stress-energy tensor. Thus, all energy produces a gravitational
effect. There's no conversion required.

Perhaps we just disagree. I think a mass to photon (gamma ray)
conversion is measureable and occurs during deuterium decay. I think
a gamma ray to mass conversion does not ccur without a trigger - like
the gamma ray smashing into something.

The decay of a particle to photons is generally symmetric,
in that a pair is produced and travel in such a wise as to
conserve momentum.

A pair of gammas can result in pair production, usually
mediated by a third, charged particle. Otherwise the
interaction cross section is ridiculously small.

Quote:

Since gravity is just an energy (gravity is not mass), perhaps
gravitational energy could attach to other forms of energy - like
magnetism attaching to current.

That's a strange notion. As far as mainstream physics is
concerned, gravity is a manifestation of spacetime
geometry which in turn is shaped by the presence of matter
and energy. A magnetic field is just an electric field
viewed from a lorentz twisted perspective (so to speak),
hence we say that the electric and magnetic fields are
unified, being aspects of the same thing.

> >
Back to top
Rich1191
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:50 am    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 17:13:44 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

Quote:
richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:3lcja29bh068h8hq98ic0nsves26iiooai@4ax.com...
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:18:52 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:od4ia2pjm45s6pnq192887mjmb7ppk5oob@4ax.com...
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 00:00:47 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:


[snip]


Luck of the draw. Particles come into being with all
sorts of possible mass/energy combinations, the most
likely total depending upon the available energy from
the stress energy in the local space. More curvature
makes for more energy availability and larger, more
energetic particle creation. That's why smaller
black holes are hotter than large ones and radiate
faster.

There is may be a conservation of energy problem. Attraction to the
particle below the horizon causes the particle above the horizon to
need greater than gravitational escape velocity.

So? The particles are created with a range of energies.
Those with enough KE to escape, will. Those without, won't.
I don't see any conservation of energy problem here.

Should I assume that the sum of the kinetic energy the of the pair
plus the mass of the pair converted to energy nearly equals the total
energy within the black hole?

It will be some minute portion of it for large black holes
(assuming that you are speaking of the energy equivalent
of the entire black hole).

If a gravitational field causes aether to collapse into a particle

shouldn't a black hole simply suck (reduce concentration of) aether at
the event horizon, instead of concentrating gravity (forming a
particle) at the event horizon?
Quote:

[snip]


A magnetic field produced a current is actually being produced
by moving charges that comprise the current. A lone electron
hasn't much in the way of a magnetic field, but if you push
it with enough kinetic energy that lone electric charge can
radiate an intense electromagnetic field.

A magnetic field requires a conductor in a closed circuit. Even if
the electron travels in a circle producing synchrotron radiation, a
single electron cannot produce current or magnetism. Total magnetic
ENERGY really is the energy predicted by the current & loops of
conductor. Infinite energy of gravitational, electrostatic, or
magnetic fields is simply a mathematical extrapolation that is not
based on reality.

A magnetic field does not require a conductor in a closed
circuit. Just moving charges will do (see Maxwell).
Conductors are an engineering convenience.

When an electron moves in a circle, magnetic energy persists long
enough to accumulate, due to increased inductance. Magnetic field
intensity would be dependent on distance from the 'path', not
necessarily greater at the locus of the electron.

That seems like so much word salad to me. Perhaps you
could clarify with the relevant equations.

Inductance (ratio of magnetism to current) is proven and measurable.

Current without inductance produces no magnetism. From Wikipedia,

"Inductance (measured in henries) is an effect which results from the
magnetic field that forms around a current carrying conductor"

Movement of an electron through a vacuum does not convert the vacuum
into a conductor. Only current through a conductor produces
magnetism.
Quote:

In an 'open' circuit, the linear electron travel path would be a
circle with infinite radius. Even distribution of magnetism along
this path makes the magnetic field at the electron virtually ZERO.

Yet Maxwell says this isn't so. Perhaps you are confusing
the electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by accelerated
charges (which propagates decoupled from the charge) with the
magnetic field that is associated with a moving charge?

Perhaps Maxwell's electron needed a conductor to produce magnetism.

Single electrons in motion can certainly produce a magnetic field,
and the definition of current is the movement of charge from one
point to another. A single electron counts as a charge.

Try applying Kirchoff's law to a single electron.

Maxwell trumps Kirchoff when you're not dealing with
a closed circuit.

It is tough enough to detect a single electron with a photomultiplier,

even tougher to detect the magnetic field of a group electrons that
are not being accelerated by voltage. I would be surprised if a
measurable magnetic field from a group of drifting electrons outside
an electric field could be measured. Of course I have been surprised
(wrong) before.
Quote:

Who (besides yourself) has said anything about "infinite energy"?

The Rutherford gold backscatter experiment assumed a powerful
electrostatic field existed around a gold nucleus. Unless he had
independent proof that proton electrostatic energy is great enough to
cause the backscatter, he could not be sure that the backscatter was
not due to some other quantum effect.

That doesn't address the "infinities" you mentioned.

Rutherford noted that the scattering agreed with a
model that comprised a very tiny, positively charged
nucleus and that electrons were negligibly small
negatively charged projectiles.

Rutherford based nucleus size on electrostatics and mass, as

determined by collision experiments. That does not limit other forms
of energy in a nucleus to a distance within the electrostatic
boundary.
Quote:

[snip]


You're doing work on the charges in a circuit in order to
establish the field. If the potential difference that
maintains the current is removed, the field collapses.

Application of a magnetic field does not increase the kinetic energy
of an electron (Lorentz force law) within a superconductor, yet
produces magnetism. Perhaps that is another idea for a perpetual
motion machine.

A superconductor with a constant current flowing in it is
surrounded by a static magnetic field. Add an external
field and you get the usual effects (such as the Hall
effect). Add too much of an external field and you'll
"break" the superconductor. Energy is conserved.

Conservation of energy? If a magnetic field CHANGES the path of an
electron, magnetic energy does not decrease and kinetic energy of the
electron does not increase. Are you drawing a parallel to the
influence of one magnetic field on another?

In order to move the electron by *introducing* an external
field, work must be done to establish the field.

At any strength, or any changing strength, a magnetic field cannot

increase or decrease electron kinetic energy. For example:
The magnetic fields of a cyclotron move an electron in a half circle.
A voltage gradient between the two magnetic D's, add kinetic energy to
the electron. After 50 to 200 trips voltage gradient accelerations,
electron radius reaches the outer diameter of the magnetic field, thus
have the maximum kinetic energy the cyclotron is capable of producing.
If the magnetic fields increased or decreased electron velocity,
electron path through the D's would be a spiral instead of a half
circle.

Either moving a conductor through a magnetic field (generater) or
changing magnetic field strength near a conductor (transformer) is
work that is converted to magnetism. The energy of the moving
conductor is not converted to electron kinetic energy.
Quote:

Isn't ALL current within a superconductor converted to magnetism?

Current is the motion of charges. What do you mean by current
being converted to magnetism? Are electrons magically transformed
into magnetic monopoles?

Perhaps magnetism and current are independent forms of energy,

requiring conversion to become one or the other.
Quote:

Electric charges require no work in order to maintain
their field indefinitely.

Just as a permanent magnet holds magnetism indefinitely?

Provided that its magnetic domains remain aligned, yes.

[snip]


Light has no rest mass and always moves at C. When gravity
works on light as the light moves from one gravitational
potential to another it adds or subtracts from the photon's
energy content (momentum) and the light changes frequency
rather than speed.

Are you saying light has gravitational energy AND photon energy, or
are you saying photon energy CONVERTS to gravitational energy, or
what?

Photons carry momentum. That's the form of energy they carry.
All energy affects space a la General Relativity via the
stress-energy tensor. Thus, all energy produces a gravitational
effect. There's no conversion required.

Perhaps we just disagree. I think a mass to photon (gamma ray)
conversion is measureable and occurs during deuterium decay. I think
a gamma ray to mass conversion does not ccur without a trigger - like
the gamma ray smashing into something.

The decay of a particle to photons is generally symmetric,
in that a pair is produced and travel in such a wise as to
conserve momentum.

A pair of gammas can result in pair production, usually
mediated by a third, charged particle. Otherwise the
interaction cross section is ridiculously small.

Just because two gamma rays meet within a cross section does not

necessarily mean the two gamma rays form a particle instead of
continuing in their respective paths. When two radio waves meet, they
continue along their respective paths.
Quote:

Since gravity is just an energy (gravity is not mass), perhaps
gravitational energy could attach to other forms of energy - like
magnetism attaching to current.

That's a strange notion. As far as mainstream physics is
concerned, gravity is a manifestation of spacetime
geometry which in turn is shaped by the presence of matter
and energy. A magnetic field is just an electric field
viewed from a lorentz twisted perspective (so to speak),
hence we say that the electric and magnetic fields are
unified, being aspects of the same thing.

You make it sound as if spacetime CAUSED gravity. Just because

gravity influences spacetime does not mean gravity is not a form of
energy. Converting a (gamma ray) photon to mass, produces gravity.

Maxwell predicted the speed of light from electromagnetic, not
gravitational properties. Why doesn't spacetime apply to magnetism?

Instead of:
Force = charge * velocity x magnetic flux density

perhaps a correction for spacetime should be added.
Force = 1 / (1 - velocity**2 / c**2) * charge * velocity x magnetic
flux density

c = speed of light in a vacuum
Back to top
Greg Neill
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 31 May 2005
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:p1bna21t37rkhq16nqh03ta5j8da8t78v9@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 17:13:44 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:3lcja29bh068h8hq98ic0nsves26iiooai@4ax.com...

[snip]

Quote:

Should I assume that the sum of the kinetic energy the of the pair
plus the mass of the pair converted to energy nearly equals the total
energy within the black hole?

It will be some minute portion of it for large black holes
(assuming that you are speaking of the energy equivalent
of the entire black hole).

If a gravitational field causes aether to collapse into a particle
shouldn't a black hole simply suck (reduce concentration of) aether at
the event horizon, instead of concentrating gravity (forming a
particle) at the event horizon?

What aether? According to the standard model there is
no aether.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to think that
gravity (gravitons?) is somehow being turned into
particles of matter and antimatter. This is not so.

[snip]

Quote:

When an electron moves in a circle, magnetic energy persists long
enough to accumulate, due to increased inductance. Magnetic field
intensity would be dependent on distance from the 'path', not
necessarily greater at the locus of the electron.

That seems like so much word salad to me. Perhaps you
could clarify with the relevant equations.

Inductance (ratio of magnetism to current) is proven and measurable.
Current without inductance produces no magnetism. From Wikipedia,

"Inductance (measured in henries) is an effect which results from the
magnetic field that forms around a current carrying conductor"

Your quote contradicts your premise. It says that inductance is a
*result* of the magnetic field that forms around the current.

Anyways, my vote goes with Maxwell who says that a moving
charge produces a magnetic field.

Quote:

Movement of an electron through a vacuum does not convert the vacuum
into a conductor. Only current through a conductor produces
magnetism.

Your ideas are getting stranger. Why do you think that
space would have to be a conductor in order for charge
to move through it? Electron beams are fired through
evacuated CRTs all the time, and constitute a perfectly
respectable current.

Conductors are most certainly *not* required to form
a magnetic field. Any moving charges will do. Again,
see Maxwell.

Quote:

In an 'open' circuit, the linear electron travel path would be a
circle with infinite radius. Even distribution of magnetism along
this path makes the magnetic field at the electron virtually ZERO.

Yet Maxwell says this isn't so. Perhaps you are confusing
the electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by accelerated
charges (which propagates decoupled from the charge) with the
magnetic field that is associated with a moving charge?

Perhaps Maxwell's electron needed a conductor to produce magnetism.

No. Absolutely not. Look at the equation.

Quote:

Single electrons in motion can certainly produce a magnetic field,
and the definition of current is the movement of charge from one
point to another. A single electron counts as a charge.

Try applying Kirchoff's law to a single electron.

Maxwell trumps Kirchoff when you're not dealing with
a closed circuit.

It is tough enough to detect a single electron with a photomultiplier,
even tougher to detect the magnetic field of a group electrons that
are not being accelerated by voltage. I would be surprised if a
measurable magnetic field from a group of drifting electrons outside
an electric field could be measured. Of course I have been surprised
(wrong) before.

It's old hat. Particle beams are commonplace. The problem with
dense currents travelling this way is that mutual repulsion
tends to broaden the beam, but they carry current nonetheless,
and produce the expected magnetic field. Again, see Maxwell.

Quote:

Who (besides yourself) has said anything about "infinite energy"?

The Rutherford gold backscatter experiment assumed a powerful
electrostatic field existed around a gold nucleus. Unless he had
independent proof that proton electrostatic energy is great enough to
cause the backscatter, he could not be sure that the backscatter was
not due to some other quantum effect.

That doesn't address the "infinities" you mentioned.

Rutherford noted that the scattering agreed with a
model that comprised a very tiny, positively charged
nucleus and that electrons were negligibly small
negatively charged projectiles.

Rutherford based nucleus size on electrostatics and mass, as
determined by collision experiments. That does not limit other forms
of energy in a nucleus to a distance within the electrostatic
boundary.

Yes, and so what? Again, what does this have to do with
your allusion to infinities?

Quote:

[snip]


You're doing work on the charges in a circuit in order to
establish the field. If the potential difference that
maintains the current is removed, the field collapses.

Application of a magnetic field does not increase the kinetic energy
of an electron (Lorentz force law) within a superconductor, yet
produces magnetism. Perhaps that is another idea for a perpetual
motion machine.

A superconductor with a constant current flowing in it is
surrounded by a static magnetic field. Add an external
field and you get the usual effects (such as the Hall
effect). Add too much of an external field and you'll
"break" the superconductor. Energy is conserved.

Conservation of energy? If a magnetic field CHANGES the path of an
electron, magnetic energy does not decrease and kinetic energy of the
electron does not increase. Are you drawing a parallel to the
influence of one magnetic field on another?

In order to move the electron by *introducing* an external
field, work must be done to establish the field.

At any strength, or any changing strength, a magnetic field cannot
increase or decrease electron kinetic energy. For example:
The magnetic fields of a cyclotron move an electron in a half circle.
A voltage gradient between the two magnetic D's, add kinetic energy to
the electron. After 50 to 200 trips voltage gradient accelerations,
electron radius reaches the outer diameter of the magnetic field, thus
have the maximum kinetic energy the cyclotron is capable of producing.
If the magnetic fields increased or decreased electron velocity,
electron path through the D's would be a spiral instead of a half
circle.

This is a bad example. The magnetic field in your cyclotron
is constant, not changing, and the kinetic energy gain is
being provided by an oscillating electric field.

When you move a magnet over a nail, the nail moves and can
be attracted to the magnet with a good deal of acceleration.
Every electron (and proton) in that nail has experienced
a change in kinetic energy as a result.

If I may suggest, you need to look into the effects of
magnetic field divergence. Again, see Maxwell.

Quote:

Either moving a conductor through a magnetic field (generater) or
changing magnetic field strength near a conductor (transformer) is
work that is converted to magnetism. The energy of the moving
conductor is not converted to electron kinetic energy.

So, if the changing magnetic field in the primary of
the transformer is causing a current to flow in the
secondary, and this is being accomplished through magnetic
induction, you're claiming that the resulting moving
electrons that comprise said current do not have kinetic
energy?

In a generator, if it's not work being done by moving the
conductor through the magnetic field (or equivalently,
moving the magnetic field through the conductor), then
where is the energy in the resulting current coming from,
and why do we need to pour so much energy into it to get
current out?

Quote:

Isn't ALL current within a superconductor converted to magnetism?

Current is the motion of charges. What do you mean by current
being converted to magnetism? Are electrons magically transformed
into magnetic monopoles?

Perhaps magnetism and current are independent forms of energy,
requiring conversion to become one or the other.

Current is the motion of charges. Period. Its units are
specified in Coulombs per Second (the Ampere defined to be a
flow of one Coulomb per second).

[snip]

Quote:
Perhaps we just disagree. I think a mass to photon (gamma ray)
conversion is measureable and occurs during deuterium decay. I think
a gamma ray to mass conversion does not ccur without a trigger - like
the gamma ray smashing into something.

The decay of a particle to photons is generally symmetric,
in that a pair is produced and travel in such a wise as to
conserve momentum.

A pair of gammas can result in pair production, usually
mediated by a third, charged particle. Otherwise the
interaction cross section is ridiculously small.

Just because two gamma rays meet within a cross section does not
necessarily mean the two gamma rays form a particle instead of
continuing in their respective paths. When two radio waves meet, they
continue along their respective paths.

Look up cross section or reaction cross section. It's a
statement about the probability of a given reaction
taking place. Small cross section means low probability.

Quote:

Since gravity is just an energy (gravity is not mass), perhaps
gravitational energy could attach to other forms of energy - like
magnetism attaching to current.

That's a strange notion. As far as mainstream physics is
concerned, gravity is a manifestation of spacetime
geometry which in turn is shaped by the presence of matter
and energy. A magnetic field is just an electric field
viewed from a lorentz twisted perspective (so to speak),
hence we say that the electric and magnetic fields are
unified, being aspects of the same thing.

You make it sound as if spacetime CAUSED gravity. Just because
gravity influences spacetime does not mean gravity is not a form of
energy. Converting a (gamma ray) photon to mass, produces gravity.

Gravity is spacetime geometry according to General Relativity.
Every location in space thus has associated with it a
gravitation potential with respect to every other point, and
objects in space (be they matter, photons, or anything else)
will have commensurate potential energy.

Now, the fact that the geometry of space is in turn affected
by its contents (matter and energy) makes things interesting
(in particular, makes the resulting differential equations
that describe things non linear).

Quote:

Maxwell predicted the speed of light from electromagnetic, not
gravitational properties. Why doesn't spacetime apply to magnetism?

It does. The electromagnetic field contains energy, and
thus has an associated mass that affects spacetime.

Quote:

Instead of:
Force = charge * velocity x magnetic flux density

perhaps a correction for spacetime should be added.
Force = 1 / (1 - velocity**2 / c**2) * charge * velocity x magnetic
flux density

c = speed of light in a vacuum

See "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by A. Einstein,
1905.
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

Dear richarddesaneis:

<richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:p1bna21t37rkhq16nqh03ta5j8da8t78v9@4ax.com...
....
Quote:
It will be some minute portion of it for large
black holes (assuming that you are
speaking of the energy equivalent of the
entire black hole).

If a gravitational field causes aether to
collapse into a particle shouldn't a black
hole simply suck (reduce concentration
of) aether at the event horizon, instead of
concentrating gravity (forming a particle)
at the event horizon?

The only person that I am aware of that is publishing aether
theories (Ilja Schmelzer) and doing a creditable job on the math,
has no problems with anything except actual event horizons. He
substitutes the equivalent of a neutron star for any BHs.
http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/

Aether is itself massless, so wouldn't be sucked in. Aether also
requires FTL force transmission, so once in the BH, coming back
out should be no problem. At least that is how it seems to me at
first blush...

David A. Smith
Back to top
Rich1191
science forum beginner


Joined: 22 Aug 2005
Posts: 28

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:05 am    Post subject: Re: Perpetual Motion Machines Reply with quote

On Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:03:02 -0400, "Greg Neill"
<gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

Quote:
richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:p1bna21t37rkhq16nqh03ta5j8da8t78v9@4ax.com...
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 17:13:44 -0400, "Greg Neill"
gneillREM@OVE.THIS.netcom.ca> wrote:

richarddesaneis@comcast.net> wrote in message news:3lcja29bh068h8hq98ic0nsves26iiooai@4ax.com...

[snip]


Should I assume that the sum of the kinetic energy the of the pair
plus the mass of the pair converted to energy nearly equals the total
energy within the black hole?

It will be some minute portion of it for large black holes
(assuming that you are speaking of the energy equivalent
of the entire black hole).

If a gravitational field causes aether to collapse into a particle
shouldn't a black hole simply suck (reduce concentration of) aether at
the event horizon, instead of concentrating gravity (forming a
particle) at the event horizon?

What aether? According to the standard model there is
no aether.

OK, I agree, no aether. The energy of spontaneous production of

particle/antiparticle pairs originates elsewhere.

I have an energy balance problem with gravitational energy loss (or
gain) by photons. Where does the energy go and what form does the
lost energy convert to?

If photons cannot have zero energy, and all energy within a black hole
became photons, wouldn't these photons remove (all) energy from the
black hole? Perhaps the energy that photons lose becomes more
photons?

Quote:
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but you seem to think that
gravity (gravitons?) is somehow being turned into
particles of matter and antimatter. This is not so.

I think you claimed that mini black holes exploded. How?


Various probability functions and aether are the energy sources I
heard of. Current theory (which I do not agree with) is that particle
separation at the event horizon causes black hole energy loss. For
probability to increase with gravity, the energy associated with the
vacuum fluctuations must also be influenced by gravity - the stability
of the reaction product (particle-antipartical pair) is not greatly
enhanced by gravity.
Quote:
[snip]


When an electron moves in a circle, magnetic energy persists long
enough to accumulate, due to increased inductance. Magnetic field
intensity would be dependent on distance from the 'path', not
necessarily greater at the locus of the electron.

That seems like so much word salad to me. Perhaps you
could clarify with the relevant equations.

Inductance (ratio of magnetism to current) is proven and measurable.
Current without inductance produces no magnetism. From Wikipedia,

"Inductance (measured in henries) is an effect which results from the
magnetic field that forms around a current carrying conductor"

Your quote contradicts your premise. It says that inductance is a
*result* of the magnetic field that forms around the current.

Oops, Wikipedia is not always a good place to find definitions. A
magnetic field does not cause inductance.

A practical reality is that inductance, magnetism and current require
a closed circuit. A theoretical reality is that they do not require a
closed circuit. Perhaps both are correct. This problem seems similar
to Newtonian physics not necessarily applying to atomic level physics.
Quote:

Anyways, my vote goes with Maxwell who says that a moving
charge produces a magnetic field.


Movement of an electron through a vacuum does not convert the vacuum
into a conductor. Only current through a conductor produces
magnetism.

Your ideas are getting stranger. Why do you think that
space would have to be a conductor in order for charge
to move through it? Electron beams are fired through
evacuated CRTs all the time, and constitute a perfectly
respectable current.

Conductors are most certainly *not* required to form
a magnetic field. Any moving charges will do. Again,
see Maxwell.

So you also see the conflict between the two 'realities'.

In an 'open' circuit, the linear electron travel path would be a
circle with infinite radius. Even distribution of magnetism along
this path makes the magnetic field at the electron virtually ZERO.

Yet Maxwell says this isn't so. Perhaps you are confusing
the electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by accelerated
charges (which propagates decoupled from the charge) with the
magnetic field that is associated with a moving charge?

Perhaps Maxwell's electron needed a conductor to produce magnetism.

No. Absolutely not. Look at the equation.

ibid

Single electrons in motion can certainly produce a magnetic field,
and the definition of current is the movement of charge from one
point to another. A single electron counts as a charge.

Try applying Kirchoff's law to a single electron.

Maxwell trumps Kirchoff when you're not dealing with
a closed circuit.

It is tough enough to detect a single electron with a photomultiplier,
even tougher to detect the magnetic field of a group electrons that
are not being accelerated by voltage. I would be surprised if a
measurable magnetic field from a group of drifting electrons outside
an electric field could be measured. Of course I have been surprised
(wrong) before.

It's old hat. Particle beams are commonplace. The problem with
dense currents travelling this way is that mutual repulsion
tends to broaden the beam, but they carry current nonetheless,
and produce the expected magnetic field. Again, see Maxwell.

Of course Maxwell was right, too bad we do not have a practical test

of free electrons vs magnetism.
Quote:

Who (besides yourself) has said anything about "infinite energy"?

The Rutherford gold backscatter experiment assumed a powerful
electrostatic field existed around a gold nucleus. Unless he had
independent proof that proton electrostatic energy is great enough to
cause the backscatter, he could not be sure that the backscatter was
not due to some other quantum effect.

That doesn't address the "infinities" you mentioned.

Rutherford noted that the scattering agreed with a
model that comprised a very tiny, positively charged
nucleus and that electrons were negligibly small
negatively charged projectiles.

Rutherford based nucleus size on electrostatics and mass, as
determined by collision experiments. That does not limit other forms
of energy in a nucleus to a distance within the electrostatic
boundary.

Yes, and so what? Again, what does this have to do with
your allusion to infinities?

For Rutherford's experiment, alpha particle velocity was 2x10**7 m/s


The ratio of mass energy to kinetic energy of an alpha particle is:

(2x10**7)**2
----------------- = 4.4x10**-3
(3x10**Cool**2

If an alpha particle / anti-alpha particle collision occured, at least
1.0044 times more kinetic energy would be expended, then would be
predicted by E = mc**2 without electrostatic energy.

If the detected energy is below mc**2 + the required energy for
electrostatic repulsion, then an alpha particle does not have enough
electrostatic energy for backscatter.
Quote:

[snip]


You're doing work on the charges in a circuit in order to
establish the field. If the potential difference that
maintains the current is removed, the field collapses.

Application of a magnetic field does not increase the kinetic energy
of an electron (Lorentz force law) within a superconductor, yet
produces magnetism. Perhaps that is another idea for a perpetual
motion machine.

A superconductor with a constant current flowing in it is
surrounded by a static magnetic field. Add an external
field and you get the usual effects (such as the Hall
effect). Add too much of an external field and you'll
"break" the superconductor. Energy is conserved.

Conservation of energy? If a magnetic field CHANGES the path of an
electron, magnetic energy does not decrease and kinetic energy of the
electron does not increase. Are you drawing a parallel to the
influence of one magnetic field on another?

In order to move the electron by *introducing* an external
field, work must be done to establish the field.

At any strength, or any changing strength, a magnetic field cannot
increase or decrease electron kinetic energy. For example:
The magnetic fields of a cyclotron move an electron in a half circle.
A voltage gradient between the two magnetic D's, add kinetic energy to
the electron. After 50 to 200 trips voltage gradient accelerations,
electron radius reaches the outer diameter of the magnetic field, thus
have the maximum kinetic energy the cyclotron is capable of producing.
If the magnetic fields increased or decreased electron velocity,
electron path through the D's would be a spiral instead of a half
circle.

This is a bad example. The magnetic field in your cyclotron
is constant, not changing, and the kinetic energy gain is
being provided by an oscillating electric field.

When you move a magnet over a nail, the nail moves and can
be attracted to the magnet with a good deal of acceleration.
Every electron (and proton) in that nail has experienced
a change in kinetic energy as a result.

If I may suggest, you need to look into the effects of
magnetic field divergence. Again, see Maxwell.

Of course acceleration can occur between two magnets. An electron is

different. A magnetic field cannot accelerate an electron.

Neither an RF field nor an electrostatic field is magnetic field.
Either can taint the effects of a changing magnetic field on an
electron.
Quote:

Either moving a conductor through a magnetic field (generater) or
changing magnetic field strength near a conductor (transformer) is
work that is converted to magnetism. The energy of the moving
conductor is not converted to electron kinetic energy.

So, if the changing magnetic field in the primary of
the transformer is causing a current to flow in the
secondary, and this is being accomplished through magnetic
induction, you're claiming that the resulting moving
electrons that comprise said current do not have kinetic
energy?

The electrons have kinetic energy. Magnetism does not increase
electron kinetic energy.
Quote:

In a generator, if it's not work being done by moving the
conductor through the magnetic field (or equivalently,
moving the magnetic field through the conductor), then
where is the energy in the resulting current coming from,
and why do we need to pour so much energy into it to get
current out?

Kinetic energy converts to electrical current and magnetism, but

producing current and magnetism does not necessarily increase electron
kinetic energy.
Quote:

Isn't ALL current within a superconductor converted to magnetism?

Current is the motion of charges. What do you mean by current
being converted to magnetism? Are electrons magically transformed
into magnetic monopoles?

Perhaps magnetism and current are independent forms of energy,
requiring conversion to become one or the other.

Current is the motion of charges. Period. Its units are
specified in Coulombs per Second (the Ampere defined to be a
flow of one Coulomb per second).

Flow of electrons is not like flow of water. Increasing current does

not necessarily increase electron kinetic energy. Perhaps it is like
adding intellegence instead of energy.
Quote:
[snip]

Perhaps we just disagree. I think a mass to photon (gamma ray)
conversion is measureable and occurs during deuterium decay. I think
a gamma ray to mass conversion does not ccur without a trigger - like
the gamma ray smashing into something.

The decay of a particle to photons is generally symmetric,
in that a pair is produced and travel in such a wise as to
conserve momentum.

A pair of gammas can result in pair production, usually
mediated by a third, charged particle. Otherwise the
interaction cross section is ridiculously small.

Just because two gamma rays meet within a cross section does not
necessarily mean the two gamma rays form a particle instead of
continuing in their respective paths. When two radio waves meet, they
continue along their respective paths.

Look up cross section or reaction cross section. It's a
statement about the probability of a given reaction
taking place. Small cross section means low probability.

Ok, why is the cross section for gamma rays bigger than radio waves?

Since gravity is just an energy (gravity is not mass), perhaps
gravitational energy could attach to other forms of energy - like
magnetism attaching to current.

That's a strange notion. As far as mainstream physics is
concerned, gravity is a manifestation of spacetime
geometry which in turn is shaped by the presence of matter
and energy. A magnetic field is just an electric field
viewed from a lorentz twisted perspective (so to speak),
hence we say that the electric and magnetic fields are
unified, being aspects of the same thing.

You make it sound as if spacetime CAUSED gravity. Just because
gravity influences spacetime does not mean gravity is not a form of
energy. Converting a (gamma ray) photon to mass, produces gravity.

Gravity is spacetime geometry according to General Relativity.
Every location in space thus has associated with it a
gravitation potential with respect to every other point, and
objects in space (be they matter, photons, or anything else)
will have commensurate potential energy.

Now, the fact that the geometry of space is in turn affected
by its contents (matter and energy) makes things interesting
(in particular, makes the resulting differential equations
that describe things non linear).


Maxwell predicted the speed of light from electromagnetic, not
gravitational properties. Why doesn't spacetime apply to magnetism?

It does. The electromagnetic field contains energy, and
thus has an associated mass that affects spacetime.

I thought it was the magnetic field, not the mass (gravity) of the

magnetic field that influences spacetime.
Quote:

Instead of:
Force = charge * velocity x magnetic flux density

perhaps a correction for spacetime should be added.
Force = 1 / (1 - velocity**2 / c**2) * charge * velocity x magnetic
flux density

c = speed of light in a vacuum

See "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by A. Einstein,
1905.

Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3 [37 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:16 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Is there a way to write out the process of the cumulative... Michael11 Math 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:16 am
No new posts Relative motion from individual motion kenseto Relativity 79 Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:16 am
No new posts Brownian motion, covariance Ken Honda Math 1 Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:48 pm
No new posts 3D motion of an Object IED Physics 0 Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:56 pm
No new posts Time dilation mirrors perpendicular to motion Zinc Potterman Relativity 20 Wed Jun 21, 2006 10:43 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.3810s ][ Queries: 16 (0.3077s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]