Magnet Myths and Misconceptions

[Cap-Z-ro]

Example?

See forum archives.

Regards...

[MileHigh]

Tinnan:

If i know so little,and you know so much with your 4500 hours benchwork and book's,then how is it i had to correct you about the single coil v the two coils-1 either side of the magnet?.

So what if I made a mistake about the single coil vs. two coils.  I think that goes back to the debate with Scorch.  I was messed up and I admitted it.  There is no logic at all in what you are saying.  I think most of the time I say stuff that makes sense.  Do you realize how many mistakes you made in the recent discussion and what a slog it has been to try to get through to you?  After years you are still mixing up power and energy and when you state something is still has to be deciphered to understand what you are really trying to say.  Those things highlight the inherent problems and limitations when you do experiments and primarily rely on yourself to interpret them and put up walls when people try to give you their viewpoints.

So here in lies the problem-im simply not interested in learning theories that i dont believe are correct. If i did that,then i would be heading down the same dead end you guy's are-no advancement-and still no idea as to what the hell a magnetic field actually is after that wonderfull 200 years. Same go's with gravity-the best they have is-->gravity sucks,a mass attracts another mass-->well thats helpfull.

That's another statement that I reject and you hear it all the time.  "You don't even know what an electric/magnetic field really is.  Nyah-nyah."  The problem is that the people that ask that question in an accusatory fashion themselves don't have the answer.  The worst offender was Kenny who rattled that question off like a machine gun.  When the question was put back to him, he said that he knew and just look up Aristotle for the "real answer."  Besides that, Kenny does not understand magnetic fields at all even though he is "teaching."

Beyond that, nobody around here is looking for the "deep understanding" in their experiments anyway.  Not a single person is doing an experiment to probe the true explanation of what a magnetic field "really is" so it's a moot point.

I have a thread going else where about a gravity/buoyant device that puts out more energy than it consumes-(by the book),and do you think any interest has been shown in that?-->there is one other person giving an input-thats it.

Honestly I don't believe that for a second.  My gut feel is telling me another round of slogging through your experiment over 100 postings and together the group would come to the understanding of where you went wrong.

So once again-im not here to learn the same old shit that the books of 200 year ago have to offer--they just simply dont have the answers we seek.

You are only in a position to explore the fringes after you have mastered the basics.  I think it's fair to say that you might think that you are doing new stuff when in reality it's still part of an ongoing learning process to master the basics.  It's also clear that in many cases you are going to resist the basics because you have you own ideas that are probably mostly misunderstandings.

You of course are free to do your own thing.  Sometimes people aren't going to be willing to put in the effort for a big debate all the time.  So don't be surprised if sometimes you are corrected with a one-line explanation and then just leave it at that.  If you don't want to listen then live and let live.

MileHigh

[tinman]

@tinman

. As well I'm not quite sure how electrolysis relates to magnet myths and misconceptions?.


AC

Well that law(the conservation of energy)turned up here,and i was just trying to show how this law dosnt fit the bill when talking about a combined system consisting of 1 closed system,and one open system. When you combine buoyant and gravitational forces(an open system) with the (tried to explain)electrolisis system,then a higher amount of energy can be obtained from the system as a whole to that of what you put in. If a 100% transformation of the input takes place within the cell,then this proves that the system can output more energy than it consumed, and this extra energy comes from switching from a buoyant factor to a gravitational factor. This switching is done when we convert the electrical power into heat energy and energy storage within the gas.

Maybe i term it like this.
A=B+B1+B2
Where A is the power input
B is the energy stored within the two gases
B1 is the heat output of the cell
And B2 is the heat output by the battery and circuitry
We also assume there are no consumables within the system.

[MarkE]

Well that law(the conservation of energy)turned up here,and i was just trying to show how this law dosnt fit the bill when talking about a combined system consisting of 1 closed system,and one open system. When you combine buoyant and gravitational forces(an open system) with the (tried to explain)electrolisis system,then a higher amount of energy can be obtained from the system as a whole to that of what you put in. If a 100% transformation of the input takes place within the cell,then this proves that the system can output more energy than it consumed, and this extra energy comes from switching from a buoyant factor to a gravitational factor. This switching is done when we convert the electrical power into heat energy and energy storage within the gas.

But at room temperature the state change from liquid to gas traps about 16% of the energy of any otherwise ideal water electrolysis system.  That 16% energy is not available as chemical bond energy when one goes to collect energy back by oxidizing the H₂ / reducing the O₂.

Maybe i term it like this.
A=B+B1+B2
Where A is the power input
B is the energy stored within the two gases
B1 is the heat output of the cell
And B2 is the heat output by the battery and circuitry
We also assume there are no consumables within the system.

Look, you've got to work in consistent things:  Power or energy.  You can't just go back and forth without performing a time integral on power to get to energy, or differentiating the energy with respect to time to get power.

For example, you could say: 

A is the input energy during the experiment.  (You may find the energy by measuring voltage and current, deriving power and then integrating that found power over the time of the experiment.)
B is the chemical bond energy available from the two gasses.
B1 is the heat generated by the cell during the experiment.
B2 is the heat energy generated by the battery and the circuitry during the experiment.

When you go to account for heat you will want to be careful to account for all the heat generated, whcih may require continuing measurements long after the input power is turned off.

[tinman]

Tinnan:
. 
MileHigh

Do you realize how many mistakes you made in the recent discussion and what a slog it has been to try to get through to you

Once again-im looking for the new,and you wish to teach the old. Do the brains here not have enough thought of there own to understand what one is trying to say without having to be an EE tech here?.

"

You don't even know what an electric/magnetic field really is.  Nyah-nyah."

And you do MH?-have you seen these spining electrons in the magnetic field?-my guess is no,you just accept what you are told. And whats with the Nyah-Nyah?,im sure this is something children say to others when they feel they have the upper hand,and i see no evidence of that here.

Besides that, Kenny does not understand magnetic fields at all even through he is "teaching."

The truth is MH,even the books dont know what a magnetic field is or why it dose what it dose. When one ask the all knowing's here!what causes the physical force of a magnetic field! there is never a straight answer.This happens all the time when science and physics dosnt have the answers-the questions are just circumvented and end up drifting into utter rubbish about electron spin's and the likes-->there is no clear explanation,just more side steps.

Not a single person is doing an experiment to probe the true explanation of what a magnetic field "really is" so it's a moot point.

And as i stated above-those that are still dont have the answer,so one could safely assume that there looking at an incorrect example.

My gut feel is telling me another round of slogging through your experiment over 100 postings and together the group would come to the understanding of where you went wrong.

Once again,this comes down to the EE guys being able to interpret what a non EE is trying to tell them. There is also the case where our(the experimentors)words get taken and twisted into things that were not said.Then we have another page of trying to set things straight,and steer the topic back to where it should be before the guru's misdirected the thread.

You are only in a position to explore the fringes after you have mastered the basics.  I think it's fair to say that you might think that you are doing new stuff when in reality it's still part of an ongoing learning process to master the basics.  It's also clear that in many cases you are going to resist the basics because you have you own ideas that are probably mostly misunderstandings.

How dose one master the basics (like a magnetic fields properties)when the guru's dont even know what they are. My basic understanding will not be based on or around theories or the !not understood!.

You of course are free to do your own thing.  Sometimes people aren't going to be willing to put in the effort for a big debate all the time.  So don't be surprised if sometimes you are corrected with a one-line explanation and then just leave it at that.  If you don't want to listen then live and let live.

Here are some facts that i found hard to believe myself at first.
there are those here that feel the need to be the king-the all knowing.
There are those here that go out of there way to derail others presentations and thoughts.
There are those here that are truely stuck in the past,and have no room for the future.
There are those here that are !keyboard!jockies only,and are full of advice that has nothing to do with what you are trying to present.
And the big one-There are those that present fundamental workings of things that are based around theory ,and yet to be proven fact's.

If your looking for peanut butter,you probably wont find it in the jam jar.