Indeed you're right there are several universes, the one that works as you believe, plus the real one lol :)
Energy stored in a pure inductor is fully recoverable actually, as you would know if you had done any switchmode power converter design. Again, reactance stores energy, resistance consumes it. Over and out, enjoy your simulations :) Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 5:52 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > Michel Jullian wrote: > > You insist, very aggressively, that my statement > was incorrect even if I meant one > electro-magnet. Well the case is simple enough, let's > work it out. If it's non-resistive > it's purely inductive, so v=-L*di/dt right? So if > current i is constant, voltage v is > zero, therefore consumed power i*v is zero, and so is > consumed energy i*v*t. So as I said, > "a non-resistive current loop would not consume any > energy to keep the current going". > > > > Now this may come as an even bigger surprise to > you, but a pure inductance is in fact > unable to consume _any energy at all_, even if current > is not constant. It can store > energy (1/2*L*i^2), it can transfer energy when mutual > inductance is at play, but it just > can't consume any. Resistance can consume energy, > reactance can't, any textbook will tell > you that. > > > > You still do not see it. Back to your quote, "You > keep telling us electromagnets consume > energy, true but that's ***ONLY*** because the wires > are resistive." Lets consider an > electro-magnet that has no wire resistance. We > energize the coil, which moves energy from > the battery to the near and far field. Right off the > bat we have unrecoverable energy > lost in the far field ... with no wire resistance. > :-))) Now to continue, near the > electro-magnet is another electro-magnet. This > electro-magnet accelerates toward our > original electro-magnet, which induces an opposing > voltage against the original > electro-magnets current. This consumes energy from the > original electro-magnet in the > amount of the opposing voltage times the current. > Then the electro-magnets turn off to > collect some of the original energy. The amount of > energy lost during the entire process > is equal to far field loss plus KE energy gained. :-) > > > > > > > > P.S. The confusion over the definition of > "universe" is yours (and shared by all people > talking about multiple universes) I am afraid. As I > said the universe is all there is, by > definition: > > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/universe > > as can be easily understood from such derived words > as "universal". If you dislike the > word, "nature" is fine for me too. > > > > You still don't seem to understand. Even the same > website clarifies if you took the time > to lookup Omniverse --> > > http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Omniverse > Quote, "In physical cosmology, omniverse is a term > used to differentiate a limited number > of ***universes*** from all existent universes." Take > note of the plural word > "universes." Again, the definition of "universe" is > in the process of changing, now that > we are accepting existence beyond our universe. > > > > > > > > No offense as you like to say, but isn't this an > excellent occasion to show us how > gladly you admit being in error Paul? ;-) > > > So far I am not in error, and it seems you are not > willing to claim your 2nd and 3rd error. > > > > Regards, > Paul Lowrance > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[email protected]> > > Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:40 PM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using > *standard* physics > > ... > >> I am blunt, and make no apologies for it. When in > >> error I ***gladly*** admit such error. > >> Saving face IMHO it pitiful. > > > >>> I know about induced emf, my comment > >>> mentioned no other current loop around, in which > >> context it is 100% correct :) > > > >> I am sorry, but your statement was clear and > >> incorrect. Your quote, > >> --- > >> "You keep telling us electromagnets consume > energy, > >> true but that's only because the wires > >> are resistive. A non-resistive current loop would > not > >> consume any energy to keep the > >> current going." > >> --- > >> You said, "electromagnets" Notice the "s," which > >> means plural. You know what? It does > >> not even matter if you meant one electro-magnet > >> because your statement is still incorrect. > >> Electro-magnets have induction, so you can't even > >> energize the thing without consuming > >> such energy. Of course there is wire resistance, > but > >> there is also ***reactance***. > >> Right off the bat your statement is incorrect. > >> Second, we were clearly discussing two > >> electro-magnets accelerating toward each other. > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Need Mail bonding? > Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. > http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091 >
