On 1/30/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where did this [kinetic energy] come from? Simply the energy you put into the loop to > establish the magnetic field. I don't know, do we have to put energy into a positive charge so that it gets attracted to a negative charge? (we must not forget that the magnetic force from a moving charged particle is purely electric in that particle's rest frame)
Ever heard of self inductance? When trying to establish a current the current forms a magnetic field, as the magnetic is time varying from nothing to the full level of current in the loop, this creates an emf in the loop which opposes the voltage being applied. (unless you designed the coil to not create a magnetic field) So while it might be a constant current and no energy is requires to maintain the current, you still had to put energy in to establish the field. This is pretty freaking basic stuff! Michel
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 2:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics > The magnet moving towards the loop will induce the opposite voltage in the > loop, as .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 volts > induced in the opposite direction is enough to reverse the current direction > in the SC loop the magnet will basically not be attracted at all. > Except of course for the fact that this would collapse the magnetic field of > the loop, so this helps keep the current flowing. > > So what will occur is a hand off, the voltage induced by the magnet will be > equal to the voltage induced by the collapsing magnetic field, so the > magnetic field is slowly collapsed, there is no more current in the loop and > the magnet has gained KE. > > Where did this come from? Simply the energy you put into the loop to > establish the magnetic field. (It might be a superconductor so it takes no > energy to maintain a magnetic field but it does take energy to establish > one) > > In this case energy is conserved, and energy is always conserved unless you > use the aether, space time to change the rules. > > > On 1/29/07, Michel Jullian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Your new experiment (attraction rather than alignment) simplifies things >> somehow (no torque, just linear acceleration), but let's stick to the >> non-wire-resistive loop shall we, it makes things simpler, and closer to the >> electron orbit or spin counterpart you are comparing it to. >> >> 1/ Using an external current source, let's start a constant current >> through the loop. >> >> 2/ Zero wire resistance, zero radiation resistance, constant current so >> zero auto-induced voltage -L*di/dt, so zero voltage drop. This means we can >> connect the loop back on itself and remove the current source without >> stopping the current ok? Let's do that, so that loop voltage will remain >> zero for ever, and define this as time zero for the energy balance. >> >> 3/ Now let's release the magnet. It should indeed be attracted and >> accelerated towards the short-circuited current loop so KE will be gained, >> but how could the energy be drawn from the loop if voltage is zero? >> >> Michel >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 3:16 AM >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics >> >> >> > Michel Jullian wrote: >> > > I agree with all the interesting comments below, >> > both Stephen's and yours, relative to >> > the unavoidable antenna aspect of a coil, which makes >> > it non purely inductive to some >> > extent when current varies with time. >> > > >> > > However, may I remind you that my initial >> > statement, which you deemed 100% incorrect, >> > simply said that "keeping the current going" in an >> > isolated non-resistive current loop >> > would not consume energy. >> > > In which case i is constant in time, so the >> > frequency f of the signal is zero, so the >> > wavelength lambda = c/f is infinite, so the radiation >> > resistance: >> > > >> > > Rr= 31171 * A^2/lambda^2 (with A the area of the >> > circular loop) is zero. >> > > >> > > So the power Rr*i^2 consumed in Rr is zero too. >> > This still doesn't make my loop consume >> > energy. >> > >> > >> > >> > 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." >> > --- >> > >> > >> > LOL ... this is hopeless. Again --> You state the >> > only consumed energy in an >> > electro-magnetic is because the wires are resistive. >> > Besides the fact you missed other >> > factors such as radiation resistance lets focus on the >> > fact that a magnet attracted and >> > accelerating toward the wire resistive current loop >> > would *indeed* induce an opposing >> > voltage, which would consume energy. The gained KE >> > comes from the wire resistive current loop. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Regards, >> > Paul Lowrance >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________________________________ >> > Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. >> > Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. >> > http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html >> > >> >> >
