Jed and Stephen,
----- Original Message ---- > From: Stephen A. Lawrence <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, February 26, 2011 1:08:21 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Hidden wire hypothesis redux > > > > On 02/25/2011 09:19 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > Jed Rothwell wrote: > > > >> The worst example was the Correa claim that a stationary gold leaf >electroscope > > >> does work. No, it doesn't! It isn't a little guy standing with his arms > >> out. > > > >> > >> > >> > > He claimed to have electrical evidence that a stationary gold leaf >electroscope > > > does work. > > I assume your rejection is based on a critique of the evidence rather then >just > > > the belief that it is physical nonsense. > > > > Actually, the problem is deeper and simpler than that. The *fact* that > the Correas were off in la-la land on that one is based directly on > semantics and pure logic, not on anything else, and that is why it's a > "fact" rather than an "opinion". If the premises of the other side not understood or recognised then it may seem illogical. > > "Does work" means something specific in physics: "Work" is force times > distance. When distance moved is zero, work done is zero. > > work = force * distance (says Newton) > > The little man with his arms sticking out is also not "doing work", no > matter what you or the little man may think. Once again, it's the > definition of "work" that tells us this. Now, before you say, "Steve's > full of it here, the little man's breaking a sweat" I need to point out > that a solenoid with movable core which is holding a lever in position > -- say, for instance, holding the little man's arms in position (the > little man is a robot in that case) is also *NOT* "doing work" despite > the fact that it's getting hot. > > The solenoid in the robot, and the muscles in a human, DISSIPATE > ENERGY. That's for sure! But they don't "do work" in the process; > they just produce heat. Doing work produces kinetic energy; generating > heat in a solenoid, or in a muscle, does no more "work" than dissipating > heat in a resistor. > > Of course, whether something is "doing work" is also somewhat dependent > on the point of view. At the smallest scale, the electric field in the > resistor "does work" on the electrons. But in the macroscopic view, we > get no "work" out of a resistor; we just get heat. You could, of > course, argue that producing heat is "doing work" in that particles are > being accelerated, which means force*distance is nonzero on those > particles, which means, in turn, that "work" is being done. And that's > fine, too, it's semantics and semantics are just whatever we agree on; > this new, more complex definition of work looks something like this: > > work = force * distance + generated heat > > And once again, by definition, it's nonsense to say the electroscope is > doing work, because not only is it just sitting there, it's just sitting > there at *constant* temperature -- it's not getting hot. "Electrical" > evidence is not relevant in this case; only if they can show that > fixed-geometry systems with an electrostatic charge spontaneously warm > up can they claim that something is "doing work". That is like saying it can't be cold fusion because there are no gamma rays. > Now, it is quite possible that the Correas have REDEFINED "work" to mean > something other than force times distance, or force times distance plus > waste heat. In that case, they are just being unclear and obfuscatory > rather than totally muddleheaded. But in the absence of some stated > definition for the term "work" which includes stationary systems with > fixed geometry, the simplest conclusion is that they're clueless. > IMO that is just an excuse to dismiss their observations. harry
