BPHgravity Posted July 9, 2003 Share Posted July 9, 2003 Originally posted by Tony ...Copper is a conductor but is not attacted to magnets... Hold your hand in position like you are hitch-hiking. Your thumb represnets the direction of current flow in the conductor. The direction your fingers wrap around is the direction of conductor flux. Another way to look at is if current is towards you, then the flux is clockwise north to south. If current is flowing away from you, then the flux is counterclockwise north to south. A neat experiment to show this magnetic effect around a current carrying conductor is to pass a conductor through a peice of paper. Scatter iron filings around the conductot. Energize the ends of the conductor with a 9-volt battery and watch the iron. Now, reverse the connection on the terminals and watch the iron filings again. Notice the iron will arrange itself in the above metioned orientation. This is the effect that iteracts with the magnetic flux of the generator magnets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted July 11, 2003 Author Share Posted July 11, 2003 You're talking crap.The only thing stopping electricity being produced on earth is motion. Motion is the key, hydro plants use water, gravity, and pressure to spin a turbine and produce electricity. The pressure produced by burning fuels produce gases are also used in this way. In space what goes up does not come down. Your rules do not not apply. If you spin something in *SPACE*. WAKE UP JACK IT WILL NOT STOP. Thus you get to spin the turbine depicted in the above example without needing to constantly use a force like on earth. You know I am right. Stop trying to stifle science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 You are assuming there is no force acting on the spinning object. We have already told you that there is a force, and explained why using basic proven physics. Therefore all that remains is to tell you "stop being stupid", and mock you if you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by Tony Lets start at the beginning. Under our current understanding, there are 4 fundamental forces. The strong nuclear force The weak nuclear force The electromagnetic force Gravity As per their names, the strong and weak forces only apply within the atom, leaving us with EM and gravity. Gravity only takes place between objects of mass, and is pretty simple to understand; F = GMm/r^2, where G is the gravimetric constant (a constant of proportionality), M and m are the masses of the objects and r is the distance between their Centres of Mass squared. There are however two basic equations that apply to the EM force, where we're concerned. One is of the form of the one above, with the masses replaced by charges and G being, of course, a different constant. The other equation is the one that we are interested in with reference to this phenomenon. It states that in a magnetic field, moving charged particles will experience a force perpendicular to their direction of motion. The equation for this kind of thing is F=Bqv. (F is force, B is the strength of the magnetic field in Teslas, q is the charge and v is the velocity) Let us look at the specific case of a wire. N = nAl is an equation we shall have to involve, as is I = nAve (N is the total number of free electrons, I is the current. e is the charge on an electron. What the rest of the symbols mean doesn't matter) Assume we're dealing with electrons (we are). Also let f be the force on an individual electron, and F be the force on all of them, and therefore the wire. f = Bev (just replacing q, the charge, with the charge of an electron, e) Mutliply both sides by nA nAf = BnAve but nAve = I so BI = nAf BIl = nAfl But nAl = N so BIl = fN The force on each electron multiplied by the number of electrons is the overall force, F so F = B I l Where B is the strength of the magnetic field in Teslas, I is the current and l is the length of the wire. As I have only assumed that there are free electrons (N), and this is true of EVERY METAL BY DEFINITION, it is clear that there will be a force there, 'even for copper'. Happy now? (idiot) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Oh, and the force produced will always oppose the motion (Lenz's Law) Generation of electricity is done by a process described in Faraday's first and second laws. In my universe, Faraday was a famous Victorian scientist, which would mean that the physics is pretty damn old compared with the rest of what we currently accept to be true. When was Faraday alive in your universe, tony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by Tony Are you hearing things, no there just radio waves. That's perliminary physics, da. Oh, and photons (the constituants of these radio waves of which you speak) are the exchange particle of the electromagnetic force. Fortunate that they're there otherwise, otherwise there wouldn't be a force acting on the turbine to stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by Tony If you spin something in *SPACE*. WAKE UP JACK IT WILL NOT STOP. Thus you get to spin the turbine depicted in the above example without needing to constantly use a force like on earth. You know I am right. Stop trying to stifle science. you need a slap. look at the formula I gave you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by Radical Edward you need a slap. look at the formula I gave you. I just gave a longer explanation and easier equation to understand. Not everyone knows vector algebra you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPHgravity Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Wow! That is a great explanation. Do you mind if I copy that to use for my electrical apprentice theory class? ; I will leave the "happy now? (idiot)" part out of the discussion however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted July 11, 2003 Author Share Posted July 11, 2003 Understand this, let's not fight. When a wire moves through a magnetic field, a voltage is induced, and by Faraday's law, the amount of induced voltage is propotional to the number of loops in the wire and the rate at which the wire moves with respect to the magnetic field. Lenz's Law defines the polarity of the induced voltage. This is fundamentally how electricity is generated. On earth it take energy to move something, in space it takes initial energy to move something. The difference is that in space it will not stop moving unless something stops it moving. If resistances in the generator fuelling the sateliite cause the generator to slow down beyond a point where not enough voltage is generated to power the satellite. The amount of electricity produced at that stage would be so great, that energy stored in fuel cells would reset the generator to say 3,000 rpm, detach, and then refuel themsleves. So what's the problem with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted July 11, 2003 Author Share Posted July 11, 2003 As for the radio waves I was talking about. David Edward Hughes. Marconi was an innovator. Watson & Crick 1953 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 The energy required to maintain the generators radial velocity would be greater than the amount obtained from the generator. The fuel cells would not contain enough energy to reset the generator. Theres no argument. Theres no way to get around this. Your suggesting perpetual motion which is impossible and in any case something as simple as this would have been thought of decades ago and implemented, but its NOT possible so instead solar cells are used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 11, 2003 Share Posted July 11, 2003 Originally posted by Tony On earth it take energy to move something, in space it takes initial energy to move something. The difference is that in space it will not stop moving unless something stops it moving. OK, so do we agree that a force is produced? And this force opposes the motion? Let us now apply Newton's Second Law. F = ma. ie. the object accelerates in the direction of the force. This force opposes the motion, hence it must decelerate. It must SLOW DOWN. In an ideal system, the loss of kinetic energy by this means would equal the amount of electricity generated, but this is not an ideal world and things like eddy currents will reduce the output. PS. Laws of thermodynamics. Such as 'in a closed system, entropy always increases' Such as 'energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transferred' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevil Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 It's not nice to bag him, but tony they're right. if you simply set something spinning in space you're right it won't stop or at least not for a very long time. but if you have that attached to some sort of machine that generates power from the roatation then friction will occur and you're spinning object will slow down. if you are using magnets, when they pass through the coil the electromagnetic force opposes the movement of the magnet. so as it goes into the coil it is being pushed away, and as it leaves it's being sucked in. this will eventually stop the rotation as well. i think these explanations are correct, they should be. i was only doing this stuff a few months ago. but all that aside, would a space based engine be more efficient than an earth based one? ie no gravity, no air, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted July 31, 2003 Author Share Posted July 31, 2003 Sorry to everyone that disagrees, Fact: NASA in conjunction with the Europeans have done an experiment in space, similar to what I am suggesting and it proved successful. I am right you are all wrong. Proof: http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news/releases/1996/96-009.html Read it and weep! To all those who oppose well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Originally posted by Tony Fact: NASA in conjunction with the Europeans have done an experiment in space, similar to what I am suggesting and it proved successful. I am right you are all wrong. Yes they have. This has been mentioned in fact in the physics forum, some time ago, and discussed by the people who are arguing with you. The fact that they are carrying out that experiment does not (a) improve your appalling grasp of simple physics, and (b) does not imply 100% efficiency, which is by definition impossible even if you only go as far as accounting for the energy used in making the machine in the first place. ps - "the Europeans", lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Apparently you are not talking about the same mission as the one I was thinking of. Here is more info on the satellite you were talking about: http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shuttle/STS-75/tss-1r/tss-1r.html As you can see it has sod all to do with power generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kedas Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 May I assume that you are discussing if energy can be created from notting ? Tony, you just will have to accept that energy can't come from notting. (well, at least not before 26jan2318) It is sometimes difficult to see where the energy is coming from but it's definitely coming from somewhere. The moment you make use of that spinning something you will draw energy from it (making it slow down). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superchump Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Originally posted by Tony Sorry to everyone that disagrees, Fact: NASA in conjunction with the Europeans have done an experiment in space, similar to what I am suggesting and it proved successful. I am right you are all wrong. Proof: http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news/releases/1996/96-009.html Read it and weep! To all those who oppose well. Tony, you're still an idiot. That experiment was to generate electricity through a drag teather. Energy is drawn from the earth. Nothing was spun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Originally posted by Tony Sorry to everyone that disagrees, Fact: NASA in conjunction with the Europeans have done an experiment in space, similar to what I am suggesting and it proved successful. I am right you are all wrong. Proof: http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news/releases/1996/96-009.html Read it and weep! To all those who oppose well. You sir are the highest class of idiot. The one who thinks they know everything and ignores all evidence to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Tony, clearly you have not studied physics to any appreciable level. If you had you would realise your ridiculous idea is false because A) perpetual motion is impossible B) There WOULD be a force slowing the thing down as described (quite eloquently and concisely) by MrL JaKiri and superchump plus several others. C) Zero G environments dont make fantasy turn into reality. D) Your poor grasp of electromagnetism and motion doesnt account for the simple mechanics of the machine you describe. E) the machine would to be 100 + per cent efficient as I said in an earlier post. F) Its stupid. G) Its stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superchump Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Originally posted by greg1917 Tony, clearly you have not studied physics to any appreciable level. If you had you would realise your ridiculous idea is false because A) perpetual motion is impossible B) There WOULD be a force slowing the thing down as described (quite eloquently and concisely) by MrL JaKiri and superchump plus several others. C) Zero G environments dont make fantasy turn into reality. D) Your poor grasp of electromagnetism and motion doesnt account for the simple mechanics of the machine you describe. E) the machine would to be 100 + per cent efficient as I said in an earlier post. F) Its stupid. G) Its stupid. Don't forget: H) He's stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Superchump, stop posting now. That one won't be bettered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted August 1, 2003 Author Share Posted August 1, 2003 If you can remember this is my original post, You see satellites and the space station using solar panels to fuel themselves. Is it not possible to generate electricity in space. Knowing that if you spin something in space it spins forever unlike earth where it takes a force to move something. and a conductor cutting the flux in a magnet produces current. Unless I am missing some information, it should be real easy to produce a great deal electricity in space. So why do they use monster size expensive solar panels instead? Sorry to everyone that disagrees, Fact: NASA in conjunction with the Italians have done an experiment in space, similar to what I am suggesting and it proved successful. I am right you are all wrong. Proof: http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/...996/96-009.html Read it and weep! Losers!!! The tether experiment is way cheaper than solar panel, and can produce far more electricity than solar panels. You people are absolute morons, concede defeat - Read the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blike Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 lol, the link is dead. why doesn't NASA just build a few of those up there and supply earth with infinite amounts of energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now