Strange Posted September 10, 2015 Share Posted September 10, 2015 Why do you refuse to answer any questions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James.Lindgaard Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share Posted September 11, 2015 strange, I have. At the same time, I am expected to say that I am wrong. I find it difficult to be interested in an experiment where I am expected to say it is a bad idea. I mean, it is a basic experiment. Can water effect a J-T field ? How could water effect the behavior of a gaseous molecule ? Even if water can, the reason for it might be debated. The possibilities are non-local behavior, differences in background radiation, and who knows what else. With water, if it is excited do to a current passing through it, then this might effect it's gravitational field which heavy gaseous molecules might react to. Non-local behavior has been observed many times. it's one of those things that scientists have found interesting. You know, light bending around a barrier when there is no reason for it to bend because there is no force acting on it. Of course, with background radiation, if someone considered the difference between the increased kinetic potential of a water molecule and the gases that move within that filed, energy could be transferred via 1st Law of Thermodynamics. And since heavier gases can rob energy from smaller gaseous molecules, it might follow the increased potential of gases that passed within the field of the excited water that has an electrical current passing through it. So am not sure what people would say because scientists would probably find it interesting that 2 conjoined J-T fields could have independent behavior. It might be something they haven't seen before so it would be presumptuous of me to say what would be thought of it if it were successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 strange, I have. No, you haven't. Here are just a few of the questions you have refused to answer: 1. For what reason do you think that CO2 would be attracted to salt water? 2. Why would passing an electric current change this? 3. How, exactly would you modify a CRT for this purpose? 4. In what way is electro-magnetic energy (i.e. light) "associated" with a water molecule? 5. And why would you expect this to increase? There are others, and questions that others have asked you. The possibilities are non-local behavior, differences in background radiation, and who knows what else. 6. Why would you expect non-local behaviour? 7. What effect would this have? With water, if it is excited do to a current passing through it, then this might effect it's gravitational field 8. Why would passing a current change its gravitational field? You just keep adding more and more outrageous claims, without explaining anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 You just keep adding more and more outrageous claims, without explaining anything. That's because it's powered by snake oil. Six cents a bottle, two bottles for 10 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 That's because it's powered by snake oil. Six cents a bottle, two bottles for 10 cents. Amateur. "Six cents a bottle. But just for you, a valued customer, as a limited time offer: two bottles for 13 cents. But hurry, stocks are limited." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Well this thread is worth something after all. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 ! Moderator Note James Lindegaard I make it at least half a dozen questions (enumerated/highlighted by Strange and Klaynos) that remain unanswered. Your next post needs to address this failure to engage with counter-arguments/questions. Do not respond to this moderation. Report the post if you think it is unfair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James.Lindgaard Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) @strange and Klaynos, I've already have asked Swansont to delete my account. I do not accept that neither of you understand what background radiation has to do with heat. Myself, I think your getting even with me for the last time I posted in this forum. @Mordred, when salt dissolves in water, it actually forms Na(H2O)4 and Cl(H2O)4, right ? then I guess the question would be can nitrogen transfer energy from such a molecule to a field composed of gases ? But I do think it is a bad idea for me to post in here. Edited September 11, 2015 by James.Lindgaard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 (edited) I do not accept that neither of you understand what background radiation has to do with heat. That wasn't the question. Myself, I think your getting even with me for the last time I posted in this forum. I wasn't aware there was a last time. then I guess the question would be can nitrogen transfer energy from such a molecule to a field composed of gases ? What does nitrogen have to do with it!? Yet again, you are just throwing in more random nonsense instead of making an effort to explain or answer anything. Edited September 11, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 That wasn't the question. I wasn't aware there was a last time. What does nitrogen have to do with it!? Yet again, you are just throwing in more random nonsense instead of making an effort to explain or answer anything. I can only echo these points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Myself, I think your getting even with me for the last time I posted in this forum. I see. It might have been a mistake to say that (you did an equally poor job of explaining yourself last time.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James.Lindgaard Posted September 11, 2015 Author Share Posted September 11, 2015 strange, I kind of hate thinking that the members of this forum do not understand how background radiation applies to heat and how background radiation applies to a Joule-Thomson Effect. This could be why the questions being asked really don't have anything to do with the experiment in the original post. I kind of hate stating the obvious but locations that have 700 watts of heat/solar radiation m^2 are "warmer" than places that receive only 400 watts of solar radiation m^2. And if it's been missed by everybody that when a volume of 1L^3 is increased to 1.25L^3 and no molecules or any "heat" are allowed into that field, then the watts per L^3 decreases by 20%. And for why cooling happens in a Joule-Thomson field because gaseous molecules are moving slower, it could be said this is because molecules in that field have less background radiation to absorb. None of the questions have been about this relationship for one simple reason, because I am wrong and am willing to admit it. And I do have other things I can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 ! Moderator Note No answers = thread closed Don't reintroduce this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts