@tinman

QuoteYou contradict your self AC[/size]Quote: There is no true transformation[/size]Quote: and the kind of motion has changed[/size]To transform-->make a marked change in the form, nature, or appearance of.I stand by what i say.

It may be that we are both correct.
By definition if I do not see it as truly changing in form or appearance then it has not transformed for me likewise if you see it as transforming then it has changed for you.


Personally I like to make simple mechanical analogies like Tesla did to take some of the mystery out of all this. To reduce the unknowns to something we can wrap our mind around which makes sense to us on some level.


In effect we could imagine a cloud of moving particles as a current with it's internal fields causing an external field to act on another external field...a transfer of force. This force would then cause the mass of charges which make up the rotor to move or rotate. In essense the motion of one group of charges as a current have caused another group of charges as a mass to move through a transfer of energy.


Which begs the question... are there other means to move some charges in some way which could move the charges which constitute a mass more efficiently?. You see it opens up new perspectives concerning what we want and how we could get it versus the same old grind.


AC

@tinman

QuoteThen i challenge you to take a liter of gasoline,and 1000 cubic meters of air,and make a 100 watt light bulb light for 10 minutes-->without any sort of transformation of the stored energy within the gasoline.[/size]When you have done this,then you may come back and say there was no transformation of energy.

An interesting question.


We know gasoline, a hydrocarbon, will interact with oxygen in air when ignited reducing to carbon dioxide.
Gasoline and air are both made of atoms, the atoms made of charged particles, Proton, Neutron, electron.
When the hydrogen interacts with oxygen the charged particles start oscillating rapidly which we call heat.
This rapid motion of the charges we call heat causes expansion in an engine causing a generator to turn which moves charges in a conductor.
The moving charges as a current excites the material in the filament of bulb causing the atoms or charges to oscillate as well.
This rapid oscillation of the charges in the filament emits electromagnetic energy within the EM spectrum of visible light.


Thus we can say the energy transferred to the system due to the motion of the excited charges in the gasoline/air mixture is not unlike the excited charges in the filament which caused EM energy to radiate as light. At every point in the system we have atoms/charges transferring electromagnetic energy to each other and moving it through the system and only the type of motion of the charges has changed.


After all, we know everything in the universe is made of charged particles and electromagnetic fields and we also know energy and matter are conserved. In fact we could discard all the terms such as molecules, compounds, chemistry, heat, electricity etc... and simply describe what something is and how it acts by describing the geometric relationship of the charges(particle/fields) and the kinds of motion involved.


For instance the hydrogen in gasoline and the oxygen in air do not transform or burn... that is absurd. Obviously both are made of charged particles and EM fields and to suggest charged particles somehow transform or burn is ridiculous. The charged particles EM fields interact causing excitation as very rapid oscillations which is a range of motion we mistakenly call heat.


In any case it seems kind of ridiculous to be using all these terms which never actually describe anything and never tell us exactly what is happening on the most important level. How can anyone ever expect to learn anything of value by using meaningless non-descriptive terms?.


AC

Quote from: Erfinder on October 30, 2016, 03:19:06 AM
snip...
That which has been demonstrated is restricted to very specific geometric relations, and other factors which none express an interest in.

Regarding specific geometric relations, are you referring to the PHYSICAL geometric relationship between:
a) The magnets and the coil /s ?
b) The coil /s with respect to each other ?
c) Both of the above ?
d) None of the above ?

If none of the above, then what specific geometric relationship is being referred to ?

Regarding other factors, if the other factors are not expressed, there is no reason for others to assume they exist and take any interest in them.
Cheers

Look deeper, assuming you look deep enough, one can expect the unexpected. [/size]
Hmmm ,reading the "rules of the game" lol and hold these rules in secret ? intimities sphere    ! Mother nature 


                          honey que se mal y pense ....        summ,summ ,summ, Bienchen summt herum

Quote from: allcanadian on November 02, 2016, 12:41:42 AM
@tinman

An interesting question.


We know gasoline, a hydrocarbon, will interact with oxygen in air when ignited reducing to carbon dioxide.
Gasoline and air are both made of atoms, the atoms made of charged particles, Proton, Neutron, electron.
When the hydrogen interacts with oxygen the charged particles start oscillating rapidly which we call heat.
This rapid motion of the charges we call heat causes expansion in an engine causing a generator to turn which moves charges in a conductor.
The moving charges as a current excites the material in the filament of bulb causing the atoms or charges to oscillate as well.
This rapid oscillation of the charges in the filament emits electromagnetic energy within the EM spectrum of visible light.


Thus we can say the energy transferred to the system due to the motion of the excited charges in the gasoline/air mixture is not unlike the excited charges in the filament which caused EM energy to radiate as light. At every point in the system we have atoms/charges transferring electromagnetic energy to each other and moving it through the system and only the type of motion of the charges has changed.


After all, we know everything in the universe is made of charged particles and electromagnetic fields and we also know energy and matter are conserved. In fact we could discard all the terms such as molecules, compounds, chemistry, heat, electricity etc... and simply describe what something is and how it acts by describing the geometric relationship of the charges(particle/fields) and the kinds of motion involved.


For instance the hydrogen in gasoline and the oxygen in air do not transform or burn... that is absurd. Obviously both are made of charged particles and EM fields and to suggest charged particles somehow transform or burn is ridiculous. The charged particles EM fields interact causing excitation as very rapid oscillations which is a range of motion we mistakenly call heat.


In any case it seems kind of ridiculous to be using all these terms which never actually describe anything and never tell us exactly what is happening on the most important level. How can anyone ever expect to learn anything of value by using meaningless non-descriptive terms?.


AC

Lets take the highlighted,and look at that a bit closer--water as fuel.

Water is 2 parts hydrogen,and one part oxygen--but it will not burn in the combined liquid state.
What must happen before that water becomes fuel ?--yes,we must transform that liquid into two gases. When these two gases are ignited,it transforms back to it's original liquid state.
A transformation of gases to liquid has just taken place.


Brad