swansont

And yet people can jump rope - an analogous cyclical system, so clearly you are wrong. You are arguing that if you go up and then back down you can never jump up, and this is clearly bollocks. You hit the gas pedal on a car and later the brakes. Over time, the force totals to zero, so you never moved. A conclusion one could draw from your erroneous thinking, and also clearly bollocks. That you don’t see it is the problem. Or one of the major ones. A curious stance, since you’re arguing that there is no explanation (within accepted physics) for its motion. As I (and exchemist, I think) have stated, the fact that the ring and table aren’t flat give lateral forces. The ring also has the windings on part of it, so its deviation from flatness is more pronounced. This isn’t an issue when the motion is small, but as it gets more pronounced the normal force decreases for part of the cycle, reducing friction. So the vertical motion is very important. Well, no. Gravity certainly plays a part in the analysis.

Except it does. Rigid bodies and deformable bodies have different limitations. You are applying a limitation of rigid bodies to deformable ones, and that’s flat-out wrong

Circular isn’t the issue. It’s primarily the vertical motion at issue, which isn’t why “jumping in the air” was brought up. The ring jumps in the air, but the ring isn’t flat, nor is the table, so there are lateral forces. This can manifest as circular motion, too. Complete cycle = irrelevant No physics justification for “slow response” Repeating it doesn’t make it physics-based all of the sudden. In fact, the higher frequency means the magnetostriction motion happens in a shorter time, which results in a larger force. (since F - dp/dt and dt gets smaller). Similar to how standing up slowly (low frequency) does not result in you leaving the ground while jumping does. You would expect no motion at low frequency, and then it would start when the speed of the thickness change increased by enough.

This is based on no physics at all.

Yes. If a person jumps into the air and returns, (at a lower frequency, of course), doesn’t that result in a zero net change in center of gravity? Also yes. IOW, your observation is irrelevant to the issue. There is motion. The person (and ring) can jump in the air. Looking at the average or cyclic nature misses the issue.

Technically not, since PEE involves ionization and photovoltaics does not (electrons are still bound to the semiconductor).

An changing force on the floor. i.e. there was already a force Ring undergoing magnetostriction changes the center of gravity. Lather, rinse, repeat. And to head off one possible response: you can jump in a direction other than straight up, because you can exert a transverse force on the floor. This general argument applies to any body that can deform.

There’s nothing unreasonable in asking you to check on the numbers for something that you are questioning. Your response suggests you did not comprehend the post. Wait, iNow says “I bet” about some prediction, and you eviscerate them for not having the actual data, but now you say “I doubt” without supporting data? Hold yourself to at least the standard you ask of others. Hypocrisy isn’t a good look. US stats are available from the CDC https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm

! Moderator Note The link doesn’t work, and links need to go to the specific information. Not just to the top-level page of a site (IOW, don’t make people root around for the information)

RichardReMark has been banned for repeated hijacks and trolling

! Moderator Note Seriously, stop hijacking threads or you will be suspended. 1. If you sent somebody an email you don’t need to hijack a discussion to let them know. 2. If you’re dissatisfied with this site, you don’t have to visit. But you are a visitor here, and are expected to follow the rules. 3. It’s “waste”

! Moderator Note The forum rules do not forbid this, as I (and studiot) have pointed out. If the information is on your website, I don’t understand what precludes you from posting the salient details here. It’s called copy and paste.

As I predicted. No, Faraday rotation does not do that (Sensei mention polarization. Nothing about current), and Faraday rotation happens in a medium, not free space. Picking and choosing snippets of explanations while ignoring other parts is not how science works. Neither is making stuff up because you want it to be true. The topic here is magnetic fields and coils. Stick to the topic.

Can you point to any mainstream documentation of this theory and what in entails?

Just trying to fix your (quite egregious) errors on the topic in question. You aren’t going to solve anything without understanding the underlying science. Note that this is 1) in a medium and 2) does not alter the path. (Just in case fredreload is tempted to take Faraday rotation as confirmation that their assertion has any traction)

! Moderator Note That’s not the warning you were given. You were told not to advertise your site, and that material for discussion must be posted here, which is not nearly the same thing That you are making contradictory claims.

No, this does not happen in free space

A free-space EM wave can’t take that path No, the field will not take that form

Why would the shape matter? You can shine a light, or otherwise send an EM wave through the region, but creating a wave with that shape is another matter. Why would the EM wave cause a current to flow? To induce a current you need a changing magnetic field inside the loop.

It’s a matter of geometry. The optical path length differs, and so there is a phase difference between the two beams. You need to calculate the path length difference and express it in terms of wavelengths Also a device that eliminates the single-slit diffraction effects of a Young’s double-slit apparatus.

Do you understand why there are fringes? How does sound enter into this?

What does a “coil-like EM wave” / “em wave similar to the coil“ mean?

Only three pyramids had the pi slope.

You should know that requiring this is not in compliance with the rules. Yes. That’s what you do - write down the general equation and eliminate the terms that are zero in a particular problem. In the other thread I expressly said dropping from rest, making vi = 0. There’s no reason to continue to include it for that problem. There’s no implication that it applies to all cases once you have imposed such restrictions Locked threads also aren’t supposed to be resurrected

I asked “Why do you think a coil of wire exerting a magnetic force on the ferrite ring is an internal force in the ring?” You have no credibility so “your view” is pretty much impact-free You You have been given serious discussion, which you ignore or reject, and you have not presented logical arguments; your posts are a parade of argument by personal incredulity fallacies. “comply with what you serve (physics)” is what we mean by “general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic” in our rule on bad faith arguments. ! Moderator Note As I said before, we’re not discussing this. What he should do is learn Newton’s laws of motion by investigating simple systems