studiot

Well of course an unconnected battery is a simple example of a voltage without a current. That was the easy one. So a current is a coordinated movement of charge. That can occur if the charge carriers are moved by something that affects their other material properties (remember I said they were all material ?). Since they all have mass, some force that can move their mass and they wil take their charge with them. For instance a thermal current, or a photocurrent in suitable electronic devices can be observed to flow when there is no voltage supply connected. A particularly interesting example employs Newton's Laws of dynamics to light up the screens of old fashioned cathode ray tubes. Here the electrons are initially accelerated by a voltage, but then they pass beyond the electric field and move under Newton's First Law until they hit the phosphor to make it glow.

So it is not then a possibility.

When you have two opposing forces clearly the stronger one will 'win', regardless of how the forces are generated. The Magdeburg Hemispheres is a famous experiment to demonstrate this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdeburg_hemispheres Clearly the atmouspheric pressure force will win until Guerike harnesses enough horses. Then the horses will win. Similarly a given gravitational force can be stronger than, weaker than or even equal to a given electromagnetic force.

I have never heard such rubbish. When I was in primary school we did an experiment where we laid out different colour objects in the sunshine and measured their respective temperatures after a few hours. Even at the age of 9 I knew your statement to be wrong.

If you start from basics you would not make statements such as this Basics. 1) Heat flows from a hotter body to a colder one. This is non negotiable. 2) General possible modes of heat transfer are:- Convection, conduction, radiation. Radiation is the appropriate mode in this case, although since you have not properly described your system, you have not excluded the other two.

I was afraid this was another back door attempt to introduce religious dogma. It seems my fears were justified. Have you not heard of feedback and feedforward systems ?

No I am sorry if I did not make this clear. I think your youtube demonstration is a hoax or fake. We have discussed such demonstrations here before, if anyone can remember the reference. Hidden under the table or behind the background screen will be a generator of a changing magnetic field. The magnets you see are just showmanship.

This is not a thermodynamic model of this It is simply a discussion of one of the three participants in your proposed process. You have a temperature difference of 700oK. Why would it not increase ? It is just plain wrong to suggest that then photcell is neither an emitter nor an absorber of radiation. There is no electric circuit described in your opening post or your thermal model. Forget exergy, entropy and go back to basics. If you start from there you might be able to come up with something sensible.

The internet is a wonderful resource. Unfortunately there are those souls who take delight in posting misinformation. Youtube hosts some really good videos of science and scientific explanations. Sadly it is also a target for hoaxes like this sounds to be. The 'bulb' is commonly a flourescent bulb, not an old fashioned filament or more modern LED type.

Whilst we are on the subject here is a question for you to think about. It is often thought that you cannot have a current without a voltage or a voltage without a current, but you can have either situation. Can you give an example of either or both cases, you should be familiar with at least one of them.

Glad to help, come back if you want more detail.

Yes 'beating carnot efficiency' is not appropriate or meaningful in this case +1 @Matthew99FYI Efficiency is defined as as output divided by input expressed either as a fraction or percentage. Nothing in the basic definition refers to energy, although the ratio quantity most often used is indeed energy. It is therefore important to always qualify a statement of efficiency by an explicit statement of the quantity or property measured. For the three processes you describe, the appropriate terms are emissivity, absorbtivity, and conversion efficiency. Google will help if you do not know what these mean. Carnot efficiency refers specifically to a cyclic process in which a working fluid is taken round a (thermodynamic) cycle from one state to another ..to another.. and finally returned to its original state. In the process energy is taken form a heat reservoir at one temperature and a different quantity of energy is added to a different reservoir. Heat reservoirs do not change temperature during this process, which is why I asked about the photocell heating up. Work is carried out as a result of this process. Entropy is not required to increase at every stage, only as a net result of one transit around the cycle. Your diagram shows reservoirs but no working fluid.

Good morning ans welcome, 10th grader. NO it is not dumb or magic to wonder about electricity. But electricity is a huge and very important subject. So you have to start somewhere, your teachers cannot tell it all to you at once. Since you mention the electron let me start there. Britannica puts is so well. The carrier of electric properties in matter. The basic electric quantity is electric charge. As far as we know electric charge is always attached to some particle of matter or another. Any particle of matter that has attached charge becomes a carrier of charge as it moves about. These particles could be electrons, protons, ions and are known as charged particles. Some are bigger than atoms (ions) some are smaller than atoms (electrons, protons). Atoms themselves are not charged, they are electrically neutral. Charge endows matter particles it is attached to with extra properties, that interact with matter's own mechanical properties. It also has some additional properties of its own. It is these properties that hold the sub atomic particles in atoms together and hold larger assemblies of atoms together as molecules. One of the special properties of charge is that there are two types of charge. We use the sign convention of positive for protons and negative for electrons and neutral (=no charge) for atoms. Ions can be positive or negative. I say sign convention because it is simply a way of distinguishing. It does not imply any special importance of one over the other. There are many such sign conventions in Science. Back to Britannica. A great deal of electrical theory was developed between about 1850 and 1900. As Britannica notes, the electron was not discovered until the end of that period. And the charge carried by the electron was not confirmed until 1910. So the electrical theory considered electricity as some sort of weightless fluid (they tried to weigh it) that could be transferred or flow from one body of matter to another. The flow of this fluid was called 'electric current' and supposed similar to currents of material in fluids like water. However this theory was shown to be inadequate and that there are, in fact, several types of electric current, even before the discovery of the electron. Nowadays we distinguish Direct Current which is made up of a flow of current carriers which could be electrons, protons or ions in solution. Alternating Current which is actually a flow of energy, no particles actually move anywhere though they could be said to move slightly backwards and forwards. Does this start to answer you questions ?

I should like to see a proper thermodynamic workup of what you mean by this. What is your working 'fluid' ? What is your working cycle and how is the working fluid recycled ? Why does the photocell temperature not increase ?

🤣 Thank you for that word, I must remember it in future as too many find unsubstantiated too much to chew on. +1

Remember 'no equal' also applies to the rabbit at the bottom of heap as well as the dog at the top.

Congratulations to the moderators/administrators for vaccinating ScienceForums against cranks. Today's clearout provides evidence of > 90% success against all cranks and 100% against 'anti-vaxxers'

But I could have written those numbers in a different order; the set would still have been the same. It has no centre. That is the point. It should be noted that it is also a representation if used to illustrate properties of the universe since it only shares some properties with whatever manifold the universe actually is.

It's a good job that Science does not follow those Greek Philosophers (Plato) who believed that we should adopt as groundwork our imaginary notion of perfectionand claim it is the universe's fault if our observations do not follow our imaginings.

Where is the 'centre' of my example set ?

These statements were qualified eg 'can turn to crap' Before your statements were unqualified ie they were absolute, despite your protestation to the contrary. If valid, that means they must apply to all Science and All Philosophy. Now I offered you a counterexample concerning concrete and you eventually say Whilst claiming there was no counterexample, instead of asking what I meant if you don't know a dammed thing about that subject. Is that good Philosophy or godd Science or what ? Now I actually made it quite as plain as I could that I was offering a counterexample by writing underneath the second quote of your work in this post However since you don't understand concrete (nothing wrong with that, there's lot's of things I don't understand) and also since you have ameliorated your original absolute statement to a more qualified status I will offer you a different counter example to both. For most of human history Astronomy and Astro navigation has rested on a false premise, yet functioned extremely well and continues to do so to this day, even after the premise was corrected by Copernicus. Science continues to work with the known-to-be-false premise of the astral sphere because it produces such accurate results so easily compared to the work of measuring or calculating the real situation. There are in fact many such known false models in daily use in Science for much the same reasons.

You should reread swansont's post about this several times as these are not guesses, wild or otherwise. I endorse MigL's comments about representations as well, most especially geometric ones superimposed on topological set/theoretical notions. +1 This is where your idea of infinity and of edges is flawed. Consider the following set {1, 2} Ths set is finite ie not infinite. Let me 'expand' it {1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4......1.9, 2} Is the expanded thread set any 'bigger' geometrically ? Edit:- oops I originally said thread when I meant set. Does it take up more space ? Does it have any geometric shape at all (with or without edges) ? Let me expand it again {1, 1.11, 1.12, ................1.99, 2} Can you see where this is going ? I can continue 'expanding' my set indefinitely yet I have no edges, or geometrical form. I can even turn it into an infinite set if I wish Theories of Big Bangs, Multiverses etc are about topological objects called manifolds which alway have non geometric properties and sometimes geometric ones as well. That sometimes allows us to make rather poor geometric representations of the topology of the manifolds in question.

Thank you for this useful information. I am not doubting you, just trying to establish a few facts. I am not a volcanologist or meteorologist, my main knowledge of geology is engineering geology and geophysics. You have indicated that experts you have approaced have been lukewarm in their interest. A pity. I have a suggestion. Dr Ian Stewart presented a BBC series called Earth The power of the Planet in the early 2000s. He included a section where he was taken into the Australian Outback by an expert meteoroligist to hunt for meteor fragments and another section on volcanology. I suggest you approach him as he will either have a personal interest in your story or the contacts with those who will. Perhaps even in the TV industry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iain_Stewart_(geologist) @Bazil_SW Here is a paper on the 2010 eruption in Iceland. Ejecta certainly reached Brum and further. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00572 I haven't found any such papers on the 2021 eruption. It's probably too early for papers on this yet and it was much smaller and gentler anyway.

Euclid Book 1 definitions 1,2 & 3. Another interesting property to consider. Here is a version of the sketch I asked you to draw. Although of different lengths, all three lines OA, OB and OC contain exactly the same number of points as shown by the dotted lines putting them into one-to-one correspondence. This can only happen with an infinite number of points if the lines are composed of 'planck lengths of equal length'

@Bazil_SW I looked at you two videos but could not determine very much. In particular I could not determine the trajectory of your object. Did you actually see it fall ? (Some of the objects in the article I linked to were actually witnessed 'dropping out of the sky) Can you say if it fell more or less straight down or if it came in at some flat trajectory angle or what ?