|
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
In article , "Bill"
wrote: I have a scheme for tapping into the power of the rotating earth. I even built an apparatus that worked for several years. Michael Faraday built a small scale device working on the same principle. It is not perpertual motion or any crackpot scheme. It does slow down the rotation of the earth a little and causes local weather changes (on a very small scale). Bill If what you say is TRUE, then the rest of us should make it our business to KILL you and everyone who KNOWS about your device......... You have invented a GLOBAL Disaster, as if you pull energy from the Earths Rotational Momentum, then the Earth will obviously STOP Spinning, and Life as we know it will CEASE. Your Device is kill us ALL, and therefore is actually WORSE, for humanity, than GLOBAL WARMING...... Let us all start the GLOBAL Angular Momentum Crisis Insitute to deal with this MONUMENTAL Crisis, in the making. Maybe I can even win the Nobel Peace Prize, for this idea...... Me who wonders just how stupid humanity really is...... |
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
In rec.boats.cruising Bloody Horvath wrote:
:On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 00:40:23 GMT, (Richard :Casady) wrote this crap: : :Does it not just get bluer falling in gravity. The higher the :frequency, the more energy a photon has. :You people are ****ing nuts. You don't have any idea of physics. Some guy named Einstein won a Nobel prize for proving that. He didn't have any idea about physics either, the prize was in chemistry. |
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:17:22 -0600, "Bill" wrote
this crap: "Bloody Horvath" wrote in message .. . Uh... hot air rises. How can water vapor be less dense than air? You ****ing assholes have no idea of science. I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air "The addition of water vapor to air (making the air humid) reduces the density of the air, which may at first appear contrary to logic. This occurs because the molecular mass of water (18) is less than the molecular mass of air (around 29). For any gas, at a given temperature and pressure, the number of molecules present is constant for a particular volume. So when water molecules (vapor) are introduced to the air, the number of air molecules must reduce by the same number in a given volume, without the pressure or temperature increasing. Hence the mass per unit volume of the gas (its density) decreases." Good point. The water vapor changes the density of air. BUT... water vapor is not denser than air. I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. |
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
"Bloody Horvath" wrote in message ... On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:17:22 -0600, "Bill" wrote this crap: "Bloody Horvath" wrote in message . .. Uh... hot air rises. How can water vapor be less dense than air? You ****ing assholes have no idea of science. I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_of_air "The addition of water vapor to air (making the air humid) reduces the density of the air, which may at first appear contrary to logic. This occurs because the molecular mass of water (18) is less than the molecular mass of air (around 29). For any gas, at a given temperature and pressure, the number of molecules present is constant for a particular volume. So when water molecules (vapor) are introduced to the air, the number of air molecules must reduce by the same number in a given volume, without the pressure or temperature increasing. Hence the mass per unit volume of the gas (its density) decreases." Good point. The water vapor changes the density of air. BUT... water vapor is not denser than air. Water vapor is not denser than air is correct. Air is denser. I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. |
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
"Me" wrote in message ... In article , "Bill" wrote: I have a scheme for tapping into the power of the rotating earth. I even built an apparatus that worked for several years. Michael Faraday built a small scale device working on the same principle. It is not perpertual motion or any crackpot scheme. It does slow down the rotation of the earth a little and causes local weather changes (on a very small scale). Bill If what you say is TRUE, then the rest of us should make it our business to KILL you and everyone who KNOWS about your device......... You have invented a GLOBAL Disaster, as if you pull energy from the Earths Rotational Momentum, then the Earth will obviously STOP Spinning, and Life as we know it will CEASE. Your Device is kill us ALL, and therefore is actually WORSE, for humanity, than GLOBAL WARMING...... Let us all start the GLOBAL Angular Momentum Crisis Insitute to deal with this MONUMENTAL Crisis, in the making. Maybe I can even win the Nobel Peace Prize, for this idea...... Me who wonders just how stupid humanity really is...... You have compelled me to reveal the device! The device uses the rotation of the earth through its own magnetic field to generate electricity. Such devices fall into the class of unipolar, or as Gaynz prefers, homopolar generators. Faradays early devices used a fixed magnet and rotating disc. However, the magnet can rotate with the disc as shown in this reference: http://www.physics.umd.edu/lecdem/ou...18unipolar.pdf The earth has been modelled as a homopolar generator in the following references: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/earth-magnetic-00a.html http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/dynamos2.htm http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/dynamos.htm So it is obvious to those practised in the art that a vertical conductor on the earth's surface will develop a potential between the top and bottom of the conductor due to unipolar induction. A radio tower develops a potential between the bottom and top. Now, if the bottom of the tower is grounded and the top designed to extract/feed free electrons from/to the atmosphere, current will flow through the tower. A tower, a kite with a conducting string, sea water all work also. "Now why hasn't this been done before?", many of you are skeptically asking. But it has: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_D._Jefimenko He has written a book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/Electrostatic-...2573363&sr=1-6 As well as many other fine books: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&sear...fimenko&page=1 Unfortunately the source of the current is incorrectly assigned to "atmospheric electricity" rather than the unipolar effects of the earth rotating through its magnetic field. Using the correct principle one can properly design a collector tower capable of producing many amperes of current for as long as the earth turns through its magnetic field. I have built such a device and it has operated without interruption for years. Bill |
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
|
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
On 16 Oct, 23:27, "Bill" wrote:
Using the correct principle one can properly design a collector tower capable of producing many amperes of current for as long as the earth turns through its magnetic field. I have built such a device and it has operated without interruption for years. Really? Published much about it? Let's have a little think, shall we? The earth's magnetic flux density has a maximum of around 0.07 mT. The linear velocity of the earth at the equator is 40,000km / 24 hrs = 462 m/s. The absolute best you can therefore hope to achieve with a homopolar generator is 462 m/s * 0.07 mT = 0.03 V/m. A 20m mast will therefore give you a whopping 0.6V (maximum) to play with. Ian |
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:54:02 -0600, "Bill" wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aPQq...elated&search= I missed the part where this has something to do with Nordhaven, or even boats. Casady |
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:54:09 -0700, Ian
wrote: Let's have a little think, shall we? The earth's magnetic flux density has a maximum of around 0.07 mT. The linear velocity of the earth at the equator is 40,000km / 24 hrs = 462 m/s. The absolute best you can therefore hope to achieve with a homopolar generator is 462 m/s * 0.07 mT = 0.03 V/m. A 20m mast will therefore give you a whopping 0.6V (maximum) to play with. More like 12 000 volts. The earth has an electrical field of, average, 200 volts per vertical foot. You can be well zapped by the charge on tower that is insulated from the ground. The object sucks electrons from the air, and although you don't get much current, the juice accumulates, like static charges do. This has **** all to do with the earths magnetic field, which rotates with the earth. Casady |
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
"Richard Casady" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:54:02 -0600, "Bill" wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aPQq...elated&search= I missed the part where this has something to do with Nordhaven, or even boats. Casady I'm getting to that part. Be patient please. |
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
"Richard Casady" wrote in message ... .. This has **** all to do with the earths magnetic field, which rotates with the earth. Casady The source of the field rotates with the earth. The field itself is decoupled from the source once it leaves the source. An single flux line, as it expands into space, does not rotate with the earth. (How would it know the motion of its source after it left it? This would require some type of messenger wave capable of superluminal velocities). Think of a brief flash of light toward the heavens given off by a flashlight aimed skyward on the surface of the earth. Is the light's path a straight or curved?(To the observer on earth it appears curved opposite to the rotation of the earth). But is it straight or curved in space? Does the light pulse continue to rotate with the earth? Now think of a series of pulses, do any of them rotate with the earth? If the earth were suddenly to reverse rotation would all the pulses emitted before the rotation change suddenly change their curvature? So the earths magnetic field does not rotate with the earth. It expands out into space at the speed of light based upon the location/orientation of its magnetic source at the instant it was created. Once it moves out of the source, the source has no influence upon it. Likewise with charge. A slowly spinning charged sphere does not have curved lines of force. So how are you going to get 200 V/m from a wire? You can't. The wire shorts the field, the voltage at the ends and all over it are equal because it is a conductor. That 200 V/m figure is a high impedance electrostatic field. One way to develop voltage across a conductor is to cut magnetic lines of force, which my method does. Bill |
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:54:09 -0700, Ian
wrote: The linear velocity of the earth at the equator is 40,000km / 24 hrs = 462 m/s. The absolute best you can therefore hope to achieve with a homopolar generator is 462 m/s * 0.07 mT = 0.03 V/m. A 20m mast will therefore give you a whopping 0.6V (maximum) to play Unfortunately your calculation is more or less meaningless, and I can only hope you had a good calculator and didn't waste a lot of time on it. Since the earth and its magnetic field rotate together, the maximum velocity relative to the magnetic field, is precisely zero. So zero voltage is what you get that way. Of course you actually would get about 12 000 volts, but another way. Static electricity. A big tower will hold a lot, and it has been known to kill. Scientific American had an article detailing how to make a 5000 volt motor a pinwheel that uses corona discharge from the tips of the blades, and spins pretty fast for a little chunk of aluminum foil. Powered by a vertical wire. Incidently, orbiting objects do move fast with respect to the field, and a long wire will stretch out vertically due to tides. This will creat drag, and lower the orbit if you extract any juice this way. On the other hand, if you feed in juice from solar cells you get a current in a magnetic field and have a weak motor, which could, gradually raise the altitude of the orbit. You would use no reaction mass, the attraction of the idea. I have seen calculations, probably in Analog. This is perhaps a place to use your nice calculation. Casady |
Sea Water Battery Works for Years
|
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
On 17 Oct, 16:04, (Richard Casady) wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:54:02 -0600, "Bill" wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aPQq...elated&search= I missed the part where this has something to do with Nordhaven, or even boats. Galvanic corrosion down masts? Ian |
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
On 17 Oct, 17:12, (Richard Casady) wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 07:54:09 -0700, Ian wrote: Let's have a little think, shall we? The earth's magnetic flux density has a maximum of around 0.07 mT. The linear velocity of the earth at the equator is 40,000km / 24 hrs = 462 m/s. The absolute best you can therefore hope to achieve with a homopolar generator is 462 m/s * 0.07 mT = 0.03 V/m. A 20m mast will therefore give you a whopping 0.6V (maximum) to play with. More like 12 000 volts. The earth has an electrical field of, average, 200 volts per vertical foot. You can be well zapped by the charge on tower that is insulated from the ground. The object sucks electrons from the air, and although you don't get much current, the juice accumulates, like static charges do. This has **** all to do with the earths magnetic field, which rotates with the earth. When did we shift into bizarre kook science? Ian |
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
"Richard Casady" wrote in message ... Unfortunately your calculation is more or less meaningless, and I can only hope you had a good calculator and didn't waste a lot of time on it. Since the earth and its magnetic field rotate together, the maximum velocity relative to the magnetic field, is precisely zero. So zero voltage is what you get that way. Casady So you never heard of Faraday's Paradox? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox "The experiment proceeds in three steps. First, the magnet is held to prevent it from rotating, while the disc is spun on its axis. The result is that the galvanometer registers a direct current. The apparatus therefore acts as a generator, variously called the Faraday generator, the Faraday disc, or the homopolar (or unipolar) generator. In the second step, the disc is held stationary while the magnet is spun on its axis. The result is that the galvanometer registers no current. In the third step, the disc and magnet are spun together. The galvanometer registers a current, as it did in step 1." Another reference: http://www.physics.brown.edu/physics...emo/5k1080.htm a.. "Rotating disc; rotating magnet As stated above, the motion of the magnetic disc is immaterial. Therefore, as long as the conducting disc is rotating, the galvanometer will indicate a current as in the first case. " |
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:34:16 -0600, "Bill" wrote:
The source of the field rotates with the earth. The field itself is decoupled from the source once it leaves the source. Sorry, but you are the only one who thinks that the earths magnetic field doesn;t rotate with it. Mason Peck of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US, has received a grant to study the idea, which is based on the fact that magnetic fields exert forces on electrically charged objects. He says a satellite could charge itself up in one of two ways – either by firing a beam of charged particles into space, or simply by allowing a radioactive isotope to emit charged particles. The charged satellite would then be gently pushed by Earth's rotating magnetic field, enabling it to change orbit and even escape to interplanetary space Took all of two minutes with a search engine and 'earths rotating magnetic field'. Got quite a few hits for something that doesn't exist. Casady |
NORDHAVN Rewrites Physics Textbooks
"Richard Casady" wrote in message ... On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 11:34:16 -0600, "Bill" wrote: The source of the field rotates with the earth. The field itself is decoupled from the source once it leaves the source. Sorry, but you are the only one who thinks that the earths magnetic field doesn;t rotate with it. Mason Peck of Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, US, has received a grant to study the idea, which is based on the fact that magnetic fields exert forces on electrically charged objects. He says a satellite could charge itself up in one of two ways - either by firing a beam of charged particles into space, or simply by allowing a radioactive isotope to emit charged particles. The charged satellite would then be gently pushed by Earth's rotating magnetic field, enabling it to change orbit and even escape to interplanetary space Took all of two minutes with a search engine and 'earths rotating magnetic field'. Got quite a few hits for something that doesn't exist. Casady http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_paradox "The experiment proceeds in three steps. First, the magnet is held to prevent it from rotating, while the disc is spun on its axis. The result is that the galvanometer registers a direct current. The apparatus therefore acts as a generator, variously called the Faraday generator, the Faraday disc, or the homopolar (or unipolar) generator. In the second step, the disc is held stationary while the magnet is spun on its axis. The result is that the galvanometer registers no current. In the third step, the disc and magnet are spun together. The galvanometer registers a current, as it did in step 1." Another reference: http://www.physics.brown.edu/physics...emo/5k1080.htm a.. "Rotating disc; rotating magnet As stated above, the motion of the magnetic disc is immaterial. Therefore, as long as the conducting disc is rotating, the galvanometer will indicate a current as in the first case. " Case 1: The conductor rotates but not the magnet and voltage is measured. Case 2: The magnet rotates but the conductor remains stationary. No voltage measured. Case 3: The magnet and conductor rotate together and voltage is measured. Premise: A conductor must have relative motion through a magnetic field to produce voltage. Conclusions: Case 1: Relative motion between conductor and magnetic field. Case 2: No relative motion between conductor and magnetic field, yet relative motion between magnet and conductor. Voltage is not measured. Simplest explanation: Magnetic field does not rotate with magnet. Case 3: No relative motion between magnet and conductor, yet voltage is measured. There must be relative motion between magnetic field and conductor. Simplest explanation (also consistent with #2): magnetic field remains fixed in space regardless of rotation of magnet. If you can offer a better explanation of Farady's Paradox let's hear it. A better way to say it is that the earths magnetic field is decoupled from its source as it rotates. Also I'm not the only one who thinks so: http://www.geocities.com/terella1/ And our very own NASA: http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/magnQ&A3.htm 1.. Can we tell if a symmetric magnetic field rotates around its axis? a.. (shortened) Question that puzzles me for a long time is basically very simple. Does earth's magnetic field rotate around it's magnetic poles axis Well, looking at the rotation of magnetic anomalies, and rotation of magnetic poles, this is true. But that cannot be, and should not be considered as rotation of magnetic field on it's magnetic axis. The experiments can show us that the rotation of any magnetic field on it's magnetic axis is impossible and contrary to the very laws of nature. That should be viable even for complex magnetic structures as earth's magnetic field is. Yet, it is obvious that majority of scientific community is even unaware of Faraday's experiments with rotating magnets.. REPLY Your question brings up something which has confused many people (even me, when I was younger). Basically, the rotation of axially symmetric magnetic fields in a vacuum around their axis of symmetry is NOT observable. If you have a bar magnet and attach it to a shaft which rotates it around its symmetry axis (the line connecting its poles) you will not find any difference whether it rotates or not. The outside magnetic field--and the electric field, too--is not changed by the rotation, and the equations which determine these fields do not reflect rotation of the source. However, that is in a vacuum (and to all practical purposes, also in air). When matter is present--especially, electrically conducting matter--rotation may make a difference. Take for instance Faraday's disk dynamo, where a conducting disk rotates in a magnetic field (see illustration in http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/dynamos.htm ). The magnetic field may be axially symmetric, and the disk and its motion have the same symmetry, but it makes a difference, because a moving CONDUCTOR in a magnetic field B, at a point moving with velocity V, experiences an electric field E = VB in a direction perpendicular to both B and V (mathematically you need use here a "vector product", but let me not go into that detail). If instead the magnet rotates around its axis and the disk is at rest, nothing happens to the disk, which shows that it is the motion of the CONDUCTOR that matters, not that of the magnetic source. Except of course in non-symmetric sources, where the motion causes observable changes in B--these do matter, and such irregular components clearly rotate with the Earth. If the disk is not connected, the only effect of this E is to move electric charges across the disk, until they create an opposite field which cancels E, and nothing more happens. However, if electrical contacts from the outside touch the disk as in the drawing, connecting it to a circuit which does NOT rotate, then the electrical charges which try to neutralize E are carried away to the outer circuit, and the device works as an electric generator. Just for your interest: at one time it was suggested that any spinning matter, conducting or not, produced a magnetic field, but experiments showed that was untrue. See 2nd paragraph in section 14 on web page http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/ /mill_5.htm. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com