This parrellel circuit model is a better way to model my hypothetical fluid, although to reiterate the spring does not spontaneously relax after the load is removed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9emsMcG8cc Harry On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 1:41 PM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > My spring and water system was intended more as model of a hypothetical > fluid on which work is performed. > > It bears some similarity with models of viscoelasticity: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVK1qVkXfC4 > > but in my model the spring doesn't spontaneously relax after the load is > removed and the permanent deflection of the dashpot would represent the > heat produced. > > > > Harry > > > > On Sun, Jun 11, 2017 at 1:15 AM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com < > bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Harry— >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Your thought experiment IMHO clearly swapped potential energy of the >> gravitational system of earth mass and weight mass to an electrically >> coupled system of atoms in the spring as well as heating the water with >> added phonic energy in the form of increased linear kinetic energy of water >> molecules as well as an increase in the average of their spin energy in the >> form of angular momentum. >> >> >> >> It’s a good example of a macroscopic system changing potential energy >> into kinetic, in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics and >> reflecting what happens in coherent systems involved in LENR. >> >> >> >> Bob Cook >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from Mail <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for >> Windows 10 >> >> >> >> *From: *H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> >> *Sent: *Friday, June 9, 2017 7:47 PM >> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Subject: *Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:07 AM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> animation explaining Joule's apparatus and his calculations. >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yOhSIAIPRE >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:43 PM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Joule's apparatus used a spindle with paddles which was turned by a >> falling weight outside the calorimeter. The motion of the falling weight >> did not result in the generation of potential energy. It only resulted in >> the warming of the water inside calorimeter. However, if the falling of the >> weight were to wind up a spring in addition to turning of the paddle then >> the same energy input - in the form gravitational potential energy (i.e. >> the weight time the height through which the weight falls) would warm the >> water AND store energy in the spring. According to Joule the amount of heat >> generated is only a function of how far the weight falls. It is not a >> function of how quickly it falls, so even if the spring slows the descent >> of the weight the calorimeter will read the same rise in temperature with >> or without the spring attached. >> >> >> This thought experiment demonstrates how two systems can have the same >> energy input and generate the same temperatures but one can store energy >> and the other can't. >> >> t >> >> >> >> >> What I said above is not correct. In my thought experiment where I add a >> spring to Joule's original experiment (described in the video link given >> above) the amount of heat generated will be reduced because the weight will >> fall more slowly as it has to overcome both the resistance of the water and >> the spring. What needs to be emphasized is that Joule's original >> experiment implicitly assumes that the water does not store energy because >> the the amount of heat generated is claimed to be only dependent on the >> height the weight falls. Another way of stating this assumption is that all >> the resistance experienced by the falling weight is converted into thermal >> energy and none of it is stored energy. >> >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> >> > >
