Tri-Force Magnets - Finally shown to be OU?

Omnibus · March 30, 2008, 02:35:41 AM

Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 02:31:53 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 02:30:13 AM
I've already explained it and I'm not gonna repeat it every time you feel like asking me to repeat it. Go back in the thread and read it.

Then explain why my experiment WORKS. If what i said is somehow "wrong".

No, in order for this conversation to continue you have put some effort and learn some basic things in physics. How can you ask me to explain things to you while being so much at odds with the very basic concepts in physics? That's impossible. Notwithstanding the fact that when I explain things to you you just don't want to learn. Just stop this and do some learning and thinking.

sm0ky2 · March 30, 2008, 02:53:03 AM

Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 02:35:41 AM
Quote from: sm0ky2 on March 30, 2008, 02:31:53 AM
Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 02:30:13 AM
I've already explained it and I'm not gonna repeat it every time you feel like asking me to repeat it. Go back in the thread and read it.

Then explain why my experiment WORKS. If what i said is somehow "wrong".

No, in order for this conversation to continue you have put some effort and learn some basic things in physics. How can you ask me to explain things to you while being so much at odds with the very basic concepts in physics? That's impossible. Notwithstanding the fact that when I explain things to you you just don't want to learn. Just stop this and do some learning and thinking.

its obvious that you have no clue and are just saying this to avoid the issue. My physics hold true. Theres nothing you can say against that until you show where you think it is wrong. Failure to do so, implies that you do not have an understanding of the physics we are discussing here.

How does the Mass of the ball relate to Wb/M^2/N, without respect to the Location of the Ball?
Can you explain this?

Or does what i am saying hold true and the M^2 actually play a roll in the POTENTIAL ENERGY of the ball??

Think about it.

sm0ky2 · March 30, 2008, 03:01:53 AM

In the case of an electromagnetic field this is represented in N/V*s^2

Omnibus · March 30, 2008, 03:04:16 AM

That's indeed your "physics" and not the science called physics. Because according to the science called physics the magnetic potential energy at A is not only not zero. as you "physics" incorrectly considers, but has the maximum value of that energy at all studied points. You are confused and can't even understand that.

sm0ky2 · March 30, 2008, 03:07:10 AM

Quote from: Omnibus on March 30, 2008, 03:04:16 AM
That's indeed your "physics" and not the science called physics. Because according to the science called physics the magnetic potential energy at A is not only not zero. as you "physics" incorrectly considers, but has the maximum value of that energy at all studied points. You are confused and can't even understand that.

I DO UNDERSTAND THAT> as i tried to explain 300+ posts ago. that is elementary magnetics. and is irrelevant.

If the full magnetic potential of the field is 1J.

then at Point B, (which is at a point well inside the full field) the BALL has LESS than 1 Joule of potential Energy. Does it not??

This is not considering the (full) negative potential that the ball will experience at point C. We are talking just Point B here.