studiot

You didn't answer my question. What is the magnetic flux change in the coil?

I do like the sentiment of the title so +1. In particular I like the reference to grey areas, and that you have designated it 'very large' IMHO far too many arguments develop simply because two (or more) folks take oppositely polarised positions and cannot admit to that grey area.

What exactly does the underlined bit mean? You realise that the change in the magnetic field means that the number of lines threading the coil must change to generate an EMF? The coil doesn't care which lines thread, it is the total number that count.

You will find a good analysis, with simple calculations, of all these things, including conservation of energy, power dissipated for given coil resistance, what happens if the coil is a superconductor, work done moving the magnet etc etc in Fundamentals of Electricity and Magnetism by Kip. pages 289 to 291 in my second edition Kip is an old standard but it really is a very good book. You should read it.

Yes you jumped in before I finished writing a full and proper answer to the first time you wrote a full and proper post.

OK so I'm back in Somerset. Can you provide some architectural setails to go with the material you put in the first post? Is the roof single or double pitched, hipped or what? How is the side thrust from the rafters resisted ? Six metres is a very long length of structural timber to obtain, I note your builder suggests laminated. What fixing down arrangements are available? What will be seen of the beams and rafters. Are 200 (high?) x 100 (wide) beams the max or could they be bigger? They seem small to me from connection considerations. With the loads discussed, I don't think you need steel. I think suitable beams could be made up on site from laminated facings (that don't have to be 6m long) enclosing spacer blocks of timber. This arrangement would have many advantages. Timber needs spread out connections. It tends to relax under compression and loose some load transference capacity of connecting bolts bearing directly on timber. There might be a difficulty fixing rafters to a timber steel sandwich only 100 wide.

Good morning, Ted and welcome. 83 huh? Well your typing fingers seem much younger. This is in 'speculations' (perhaps it was moved?) but I don't see any speculations as defined here. In particular I don't see a clear 'mission statement', backed up by a chain of reasoning from universally agreed facts. So what exactly is your 'speculation' in condensed form please? Please note some of your reasoning seems sound but you should avoid 'reality' or 'exists' which are metaphysical terms rather than scientific ones as they are imprecise and speculative in themselves.

Can we have that one again. but louder please ? +1

You are quite right the snow loading requirements will be different in Scotland, Somerset and Tenerife. http://www.snow-forecast.com/resorts/Teide/6day/mid That is why correct building load assessment includes a location. Location also affects wind loading.

The 1 and 0 and the letters a and b are just 'dummy' elements or placeholders. There is only one 'field' with 2 elements. Whatever those two elements are, they must be the same type of object and they must conform to the operation tables as shown in the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GF(2) Interesting as this is, I'm sorry but it's now half past one in the morning so I will have to adjourn till the morrow.

So it's not a field. To get a field whose elements are polynomials, or even more complicated, rational functions (i.e. the ratio of two polynomials) you have to allow for powers higher than appear in the original polynomials.

Still not sure what you are trying to do. (1) Fails the identity axiom: "there exist two different elements 0 and 1 in F such that a + 0 = a and a · 1 = a. " You can use either the 2 binary or 4 binary operations definition, they are equivalent since the second 2 reverse or undo the first two operations. The simplest field is the set {0, 1}

(1) No a field can't be a set with a single member. The coefficients of a polynomial are drawn form a field. (2) Yes some sets of polynomials can form a field. Not sure what the rest of your post is about though.

I assume you mean putting steel plates on the underside and topside of the timber and bolting through vertically as opposed to the original proposal How would you disguise the bottom steel?

I haven't visited either in a while but here are some good resources for you. Technibble is a trade computer repair site. https://www.technibble.com/forums/ Major Geeks is an amateur comp repair site but has lots of good resources. http://forums.majorgeeks.com/index.php

Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear, Surely someone has said this before. Gravity acts towards the centre of mass of the Earth. This is nothing to do with rotation.

It is, however, good to see members doing their best to offer help. One thought about bots. Presumably they don't look at the adverts that fund SF. (I don't much either so perhaps that les me out) I don't know what use could be made of that information in identifying them. How do the bots manage to click on the save button, by the way. I seem to have lost another post his afternoon through fumbling this.

You could just curl up with this good book https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&q=anderson+tau+zero&oq=anderson+tau+zero&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30k1l4.1928.8716.0.9839.17.17.0.0.0.0.451.3638.0j6j10j0j1.17.0..3..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.17.3622...0j0i131k1._CEwwF8hsy0 Janus, you have a way of cutting through the crap to a simple explanation in Relativity (and perhaps other matters). I take my hat off to you. +1

Perhaps I used the wrong word, "writers" includes writers of posts here. In fact my comments here have been directed towards (not necessarily against) posts here. I don't think I commented directly in this thread on something Einstein etc wrote In particular bvr offered 'equilibrium', whereby a four force 'balanced' a three force, which is unacceptable.

If more than one definition / interpretation is available, then it is incumbent upon a writer to make it plain which one is in use at any point in the writing. Otherwise it can easily lead to one definition being set against another, as I noted.

One of the hopes with the new software was that trash posting would be reduced (I dare not say eliminated ... oh heaven) , but the rash posters seem to have found their way round the new layout a lot better than I have. Are there any statistics yet to show if the reduction goal has been achieved? Or are the mods having to work harder than ever to remove this stuff ? This morning it seems to be at the same level as before and the trash posters certainly seem to get posted very quickly after joining. See the screenshot below. There seem to be plenty of instances where there is no other site activity between joining and graffiti activity. The actual continuous list of trashtivity was much longer but I couldn't get any more on screen.

In Newtonian mechanics, which is all we need here, gravity is most definitely a force. The interpretation of gravity as some sort of warping of spacetime (not space) is non Newtonian. You should not mix Newtonian and non Newtonian physics.

I am currently in the north of Scotland, but expect to be back home by the weekend when I will have the data tables and time to check calculations if that is any good. I could easily envy your choice of domicile, except I found the strawberries oversize and tasteless.

What do you mean by solid? Small molecules can seep through what seem to us to be impenetrable solid barriers. Helium seeps out of helium balloons, which eventually deflate. Methane seeps through solid concrete floor slabs so special measure have to be taken when building over methane producing sites eg old rubbish tips. Water seeps through solid earth and some solid rocks.