# What force reduces a batteries energy ?

## Recommended Posts

In my hand I have a 7.5v battery off a RC car that I've been attaching to a fan in a test of aerodynamics .

The  thought occurred that the battery in my hand retains a charge and the charge retains for a lengthy period .

Now when I attach the fan connection and my blades start to revolve , I considered that there is now a current flowing from my battery to the fan , A to B

Can you please tell me what force the fan is applying on my battery that creates an inflow of energy , extracting the energy from my battery ?

F(X) = ?

F is force

X is vector

a = charge

b=wire and fan

Edited by Complexity

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Complexity said:

Now when I attach the fan connection and my blades start to revolve , I considered that there is now a current flowing from my battery to the fan , A to B

That is only half of the story: the current is flowing from one pole of the battery to the other, through the fan.

1 hour ago, Complexity said:

Can you please tell me what force the fan is applying on my battery that creates an inflow of energy , extracting the energy from my battery ?

So the answer is: none. The only force is that coming from the potential difference between the two poles of the battery.

##### Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Eise said:

So the answer is: none. The only force is that coming from the potential difference between the two poles of the battery.

So the answer is not none then because you state there is a force and it is the force between the two poles .  I assume you mean the + and -  signs .

So in essence you are saying a circuit is made !

Ok ,  can you tell me why a battery will go flat over a period of time when not being used ?

Where does the charge go and by what force ?

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Complexity said:

Can you please tell me what force the fan is applying on my battery that creates an inflow of energy , extracting the energy from my battery ?

I would say it is the other way round: the voltage of the battery could be considered (rather inaccurately) as a force that pushes electrons (from the negative terminal) and pulls electrons (to the positive terminal) hence generating a current. The current flows through the motor: some of the energy of the current is converted to  kinetic energy of the fan (and the air it moves), some is converted to heat.

I would caution you against trying to interpret absolutely everything in terms of force though. Not everything is caused by forces. (In GR, gravity is not a force, for example.)

And, once again, your "mathematics" is a meaningless collection of symbols.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Strange said:

I would say it is the other way round: the voltage of the battery could be considered (rather inaccurately) as a force that pushes electrons (from the negative terminal) and pulls electrons (to the positive terminal) hence generating a current. The current flows through the motor: some of the energy of the current is converted to  kinetic energy of the fan (and the air it moves), some is converted to heat.

I would caution you against trying to interpret absolutely everything in terms of force though. Not everything is caused by forces. (In GR, gravity is not a force, for example.)

And, once again, your "mathematics" is a meaningless collection of symbols.

You may be correct about my math but I really do understand the nature of forces and the physical aspects involved .  Mass curves space-time  energy towards it with a linear force of gravity .  I disagree , force is everything more or less .

The tensor force that is expanding our universe is slightly stronger than the tensor force that holds it together . A tensor force creates linear field lines  and mass gravitational force curves these lines to create space-time curvature .

Consider a taught bed sheet that was being supported in each corner , then drop an iron ball in the middle of the sheet so the sheet become slightly concave and curved downwards .

The force that creates the curve is the gravity linear force pulling down on the iron ball . If there were no gravity ''under the sheet''  , the sheet wouldn't concave as the iron ball would have no weight to cause effect on the form of the taught sheet .

P.s People don't want to try and understand my math . Any ''negative'' point of space has gravitational force .

Edited by Complexity

##### Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Complexity said:

You may be correct about my math but I really do understand the nature of forces and the physical aspects involved .  Mass curves space-time  energy towards it with a linear force of gravity .

You say you understand and then write nonsense like that second sentence, which demonstrates very clearly that you do not understand.

Until you can get past this attitude of believing you understand things when you clearly don't, you will not be able to learn and get to understand the things you currently don't understand.

58 minutes ago, Complexity said:

The tensor force that is expanding our universe is slightly stronger than the tensor force that holds it together .

There is no such thing as a "tensor force".

There is no force causing the expansion of the universe. (In the same way that gravity is not a force.)

58 minutes ago, Complexity said:

Consider a taught bed sheet that was being supported in each corner , then drop an iron ball in the middle of the sheet so the sheet become slightly concave and curved downwards .

The force that creates the curve is the gravity linear force pulling down on the iron ball . If there were no gravity ''under the sheet''  , the sheet wouldn't concave as the iron ball would have no weight to cause effect on the form of the taught sheet .

No. No. No. This is completely and utterly wrong. Please stop spouting nonsense and take some time to LEARN.

1 hour ago, Complexity said:

P.s People don't want to try and understand my math .

You don't have any math. You have meaningless collections of symbols.

##### Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Strange said:

1.There is no such thing as a "tensor force".

2.There is no force causing the expansion of the universe. (In the same way that gravity is not a force.)

3.You don't have any math. You have meaningless collections of symbols.

I could  never hope to win an argument against moderators but all the same I'll attempt it !

Who says there is no tensor force ?

Don't you mean that nobody as yet discovered or written a scientific paper on a tensor force ?

Gravity is quite clearly a force  , the force that keeps things on the ground .

My math means nothing to you is the correct statement , the reason is because you don't understand it and are not willing to attempt to understand it . An equivalent to aliens visiting the earth and you telling them their math is meaningless just because you personally don't get it . Likewise I see some of your math seems meaningless .

My math on force etc is based on negative energy -E

Where all +E is attracted to -E

Consider a 4 dimensional manifold  X,Y,Z and E

Consider at the center of the manifold is a single point -E

How would you describe in math  the +E of the manifold volume being attracted to the single  -E point in a centripetal isotropic manner ?

Linear algebra ?

I have so far :

-Ec^3

Edited by Complexity

##### Share on other sites

Strange, do not feed the troll...

'Complexity' has shown not to understand any physics and math at all. And he doesn't want to learn, so what is the use?

##### Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Complexity said:

Who says there is no tensor force ?

As you are the one claiming such a thing exists, the burden is on you to provide a reference that supports this.

(Actually, there is such a thing, I find, but it has nothing to do with gravity.)

7 minutes ago, Complexity said:

Gravity is quite clearly a force  , the force that keeps things on the ground .

Not in GR, it isn't.

8 minutes ago, Complexity said:

My math means nothing to you is the correct statement ,

It is nothing to do with "understanding it". It is not valid mathematics. You are just throwing random symbols around.

9 minutes ago, Complexity said:

I have

-Ec^3

For example, this does not have the same units as force, so it cannot be a valid expression for force.

##### Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Strange said:

For example, this does not have the same units as force, so it cannot be a valid expression for force.

Ok, the attractive  force in the scenario manifold comes from the -E

How would you present that in math ?

21 minutes ago, Eise said:

Strange, do not feed the troll...

'Complexity' has shown not to understand any physics and math at all. And he doesn't want to learn, so what is the use?

I'm not very good at math , not a troll .  There is nothing wrong with my physics .

Edited by Complexity

##### Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Complexity said:

I'm not very good at math , not a troll .

Then stop posting meaningless mathematical looking symbols.

13 minutes ago, Complexity said:

There is nothing wrong with my physics .

LOL. Everything is wrong with your physics.

##### Share on other sites

Actually I blame (at least partly) the current vogue to  reduce the Maths to things like this

${G_{\alpha \beta }} = {T_{\alpha \beta }}$    (Baez on GR)

$H\left( \psi \right) = E\left( \psi \right)$    (Hamiltonian formulation of Schroedinger equation)

Those who have truly studied this stuff know that this is very shorthand hiding a multiplicity of equations and other stuff you would need to perform any actual calculations.

But it leads others to think you can just write energy = whatever.

Edited by studiot

##### Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Eise said:

LOL. Everything is wrong with your physics.

My physics at least is my own physics and not just a repeat of  others !

c is falling regardless of what Maxwell or others said .

Newton was correct about apples and they fall in a straight line  as do falling photons .

I wish somebody would seriously help with the math .

Edited by Complexity

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Complexity said:

E=mc^3 is correct isn't it ?

For your math that is correct.  Not so much for the rest of the world.

##### Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, studiot said:

Actually I blame (at least partly) the current vogue to  reduce the Maths to things like this

Gαβ=Tαβ     (Baez on GR)

H(ψ)=E(ψ)     (Hamiltonian formulation of Schroedinger equation)

Those who have truly studied this stuff know that this is very shorthand hiding a multiplicity of equations and other stuff you would need to perform any actual calculations.

But it leads others to think you can just write energy = whatever.

Does that say gravity A to B equals Tensor A to B  ?

16 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

For your math that is correct.  Not so much for the rest of the world.

Well actually since a while back when I wrote that I've considered changing it and trying to define that in solely energy terms .

In my present model that would read

E=-E+E/R^3 =0

Which explains everything that exists .

Edited by Complexity

##### Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Complexity said:

My physics at least is my own physics and not just a repeat of  others !

!

Moderator Note

Ouch! It's clear you don't understand science in the least if you can say this. Eliminating subjective influences, like making up your own physics, is one of the reasons scientific methodology is so successful.

Your posts violate our rules against soapboxing (because you NEVER support your non-mainstream ideas with actual evidence), and your seeming immunity to reason makes you look like a troll. I invite you to either get help by asking questions rather than pushing your misunderstandings so assertively, or just back off and try to read and learn rather than post. Unless you change your style or enjoy a less active role here, you'll get a couple more warnings and then we'll ban you. Discussing science in your style is meaningless for everyone, and actually hurts your understanding deeply.

##### Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×