The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?  (Read 36290 times)

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?
« Reply #50 on: 01/10/2016 19:10:59 »
I m not a smart guy but I do have imagination. I believe that we will soon be capable to travel on space time “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” .by Albert Einstein 
I think that the humanity is like a piece of metal on a large magnet, where, we are being pull down by gravity. The same way with our planet Earth that it being pull dawn by the gravity of the Sun and the Sun by another superior gravitational force.
When, we get to the point in which we are capable of building and space ship that could create a gravitational force strong enough to push the Earth gravitational force, the same way the earth pushes the Sun we are going to be traveling on space time. (Sun’s gravity +( - ( + Earth gravity)) +( - ( + artificial gravitational force  + mc˛)) )…A magnet its capable to create + and - witch it creates a gravitational force in a small scale.

We had the capabilities to go to other solar systems in a couple of years time back in the late sixties and early seventies, but no one was interested. We sent a ship, and it made it.  No one ever questions the speed of light because no one has a light speed meter or an experiment to prove it. Although I have heard some people that know, have shinned a laser to the moon, and when they blocked the laser on earth it instantly shut off on the moon.

There is no such thing as space time, space is nothing, an empty place for matter, and time is the comparison by the observer of moving objects to determine how much time has passed.

Atomic clocks can be effected by multiple harmless almost undetectable rays, to give inaccurate readings while sitting on a test bench.

We have no scientific limitations. We do have the crazy dreams of people that are trying to do the impossible rather than the possible. Which leads them to sit and spew crazy notions as fact. They even write books about those facts, and then sell them to schools. They do not realize that money comes from the printing press. If you want money so badly print it. You cannot get money anywhere else other than the printing press. I have seen people become physically ill for a few moments as they grasp that reality.

Sincerely ,

William McCormick
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?
« Reply #51 on: 01/10/2016 19:47:54 »
"Although I have heard some people that know, have shinned a laser to the moon, and when they blocked the laser on earth it instantly shut off on the moon. "

How?
Practically nobody has access to bright enough lasers.
If someone had a laser bright enough to light up the moon so you caould see it from earth, cow come everybody on earth didn't see it change colour.

This site covers the maths for you
http://what-if.xkcd.com/13/


"No one ever questions the speed of light because no one has a light speed meter or an experiment to prove it."

Lots of people know about the speed of light- from the delay on international calls bounced via satellites.
And the SOL was first measured a very long time ago.

So, as usual, your posts are full of vague accusations- but devoid of any evidence.
Why not just stop?
 

Offline syhprum

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3817
  • Thanked: 19 times
    • View Profile
Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?
« Reply #52 on: 02/10/2016 14:22:29 »
70 years ago radio communication via moon bounce was all the rage, when Prof Lovell first got his large steerable dish in operation he demonstrated on TV its high gain by installing a taxi radio system on it , directing it onto the moon and received his hallo 2.5 seconds later.
The people who use the reflectors installed  for ranging use a high powered laser and get very little signal back.
« Last Edit: 02/10/2016 16:02:12 by syhprum »
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?
« Reply #53 on: 02/10/2016 16:20:20 »
70 years ago radio communication via moon bounce was all the rage, when Prof Lovell first got his large steerable dish in operation he demonstrated on TV its high gain by installing a taxi radio system on it , directing it onto the moon and received his hallo 2.5 seconds later.
The people who use the reflectors installed on the for ranging use a high powered laser and get very little signal back.

It takes about a second and a half to establish a beam of light to earth from the moon. However it takes no time at all to see that someone has blocked the laser from the moon. That was the experiment they did from the moon. And broadcast it all over the world, I dare you to find those tapes.

Once the beam is created it takes no time at all to transmit effects across the already established beam. But you do need that start up time. So if you bounce radio off the moon, you have to establish two beams one to the moon and one from the moon to the earth. What they did during the Apollo missions was create a radio beam between two dishes, and then basically transmit by shutting off power intermittently, that actually raises voltage a bit, back to the unfathomable voltage of natural ambient radiation, which transmitted instantly. They kept having to warn the astronauts to remember the 1.5 second turn around rule. That is why some thought  the mission was a hoax, because many times the astronauts would instantly reply, with camera men on the ground recording the mission control operators, you could see on TV, the mission control fellow, making a communication to the Apollo crew, and getting an instant reply from space. It was the radio system though, not a hoax.

If you have ever done any electrical wiring you know that you go to the old wiring guide to pick the right piece of wire. Well that works 95 percent of the time. They created that little guide because of horrific accidents created by the misunderstanding of the actuality. Circular mills, annealed copper verses hardened copper, can alter the outcome of your project drastically. So they created a 90 percent over all electrical guide that will take 90 percent of the people who use it to success. Unfortunately some of those guides leave out length of run, which is actually calculated at about 75 feet. In the old days this worked 95 percent of the time. Where it did not work usually in mansions or commercial applications an experienced electrician knew what needed to be done in most cases and threw away the book. So it always seemed to work. Today with everyone wanting to just do some wiring we have more and more accidents.

My point is that the real universe as it is, was too much for most to fathom. In the real universe there are no actual shortages of materials including gold. There are no real wars only political agendas. There is no real food shortage rather manufactured shortages. The scientists with total understanding of the universe had a hard time restraining them selves and their tongues about such matters. Since most could not face the real universe they created a play set of rules that will get you through most of the day to day things we do. Radio, x-rays, heat, have all been packaged into formula that are somewhat effective. However if you ask a businessman that is in the business politely, for the right reason, he will confide that they had to tweak and rework many theories thought as solid.  Some theories "laws" we hold high are just garbage.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?
« Reply #54 on: 02/10/2016 16:37:09 »
It takes about a second and a half to establish a beam of light to earth from the moon. However it takes no time at all to see that someone has blocked the laser from the moon. That was the experiment they did from the moon. And broadcast it all over the world, I dare you to find those tapes.
No, once again you have misunderstood.

You are the one making outlandish claims so it's your job to supply the evidence.
YOU have to find the tapes- not us.
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?
« Reply #55 on: 02/10/2016 18:10:22 »
It takes about a second and a half to establish a beam of light to earth from the moon. However it takes no time at all to see that someone has blocked the laser from the moon. .........

.......Once the beam is created it takes no time at all to transmit effects across the already established beam. But you do need that start up time.
William
What you have stated above is incorrect, or to give it the benefit of the doubt a New Theory. We have discussed this issue at length with the Box in other threads.

You are getting a reputation as someone who provides unreliable, incorrect, misleading and sometimes dangerous information.
The moderators do not have the time to monitor and move all your threads so we will ask you to confine your posts to the New Theories and That Can't Be True sections of the forum until further notice.

thank you


 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?
« Reply #56 on: 02/10/2016 19:02:34 »
It takes about a second and a half to establish a beam of light to earth from the moon. However it takes no time at all to see that someone has blocked the laser from the moon. That was the experiment they did from the moon. And broadcast it all over the world, I dare you to find those tapes.
No, once again you have misunderstood.

You are the one making outlandish claims so it's your job to supply the evidence.
YOU have to find the tapes- not us.

That is how hard they make it, they consistently remove evidence about the past. I fight with the conspiracy theorists that also heard what I mentioned about the 1.5 second radio turn around rule, and claim we did not go to the moon, we did. I fight with with people who claim to be scientists, and deny that there are particles faster than light when there certainly are. When does reality win? I fight with UFO believers that showed footage from the fifties of a hovering flaming UFO, just a few feet above the ground, claiming it was proof aliens were amongst us. It was beautiful footage with sound. It was actually my fathers boss's hobby moon rock collector. They used to show that all the time on the history channel. When I tried to get a hold of it, it too vanished.

As kids we watched the entire moon landing, hundreds of hours of video. They appear to be almost all gone now. But I can watch black and white footage from before World War Two. Believe what you like I have more than enough reality for myself.

Sincerely,


William McCormick
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?
« Reply #57 on: 02/10/2016 19:51:43 »
It takes about a second and a half to establish a beam of light to earth from the moon. However it takes no time at all to see that someone has blocked the laser from the moon. .........

.......Once the beam is created it takes no time at all to transmit effects across the already established beam. But you do need that start up time.
William
What you have stated above is incorrect, or to give it the benefit of the doubt a New Theory. We have discussed this issue at length with the Box in other threads.

You are getting a reputation as someone who provides unreliable, incorrect, misleading and sometimes dangerous information.
The moderators do not have the time to monitor and move all your threads so we will ask you to confine your posts to the New Theories and That Can't Be True sections of the forum until further notice.

thank you

When you are searching for truth in a known disingenuous environment run by known disingenuous sorts. It would be foolhardy to assume that knowledge approved by such sorts and systems would be totally accurate. Because knowledge stamps out ignorance knowledge is certainly not in abundance around us.

As far as suggesting dangerous behavior it was other members who did so. And then denied that the inside of metal cylinders are coated with an oxide. If that is not dangerous and life threatening then it really matters not what I say or what actions you take against me. These are real accidents that have happened in scuba shops, self contained breathing apparatus gear, and in the work place. The amounts of oxide on the surface of just about any metal are actually great in volume and weight. That is why the gas added to those tanks can be so corrupted. It is the weight of the gas added compared to the weight of the contaminant on the walls of the tank. If this can be disputed it will not be disputed by knowledge.

I have warned a lot of people that use the scientific grade gases in gas cylinders that the gas put in although totally pure is not what comes out. I have personally used scientific grade gas and it is much better than the next lowest grade, that is much better than the welding grade. However towards the end of the bottle there are strange odors created by the last gases in the tank. This does not occur ever when using liquid Argon or Liquid helium.

These contaminants are not my imagination. If you go to a large manufacturer of liquified gases, and scientific grade pressurized cylinders of gas, they will tell you the same, if you tell them you want very pure gas for your research. They will only recommend liquified product. Because of the oxides or chlorates or carbon in the walls of the tanks. The very pure gases absorb these contaminants from the walls of the tank. I was just warning people of this.

And all I did to help them understand how I know there is a difference between the two gasses is mention that while working in plants that fill the liquid containers, and the pressurized cylinders, that I was exposed to the very pure evaporating gases of nitrogen and CO2. That I at first thought would be life threatening. But as the workers stood there in massive clouds of the stuff working as usual I started to become more comfortable with it. I then learned that the liquid product is certainly not immediately life threatening under the conditions I experienced it in. Even though I would have thought it would have been. Yet small amounts of gas in pressurized gas cylinder form were immediately life threatening by actual experience. From the pressurized cylinder there was an immediate burning of the respiratory tract. This is not the case of the pure evaporating liquid.

During hydronic pipe freezing operations using very pure liquid CO2, being poured onto a hot water pipe that was leaking, I was in a cloud of CO2 and water vapor for some time with no ill effect. Now I am in no way suggesting people do this for fun. I am just relaying what you might see or do if you perform those duties. Yet I was almost made unconscious by CO2 from a fire extinguisher in a confined space with no fire present. And also CO2 from very small cylinders had this same effect.

The CO2 in welding cylinders is also not pleasant to inhale and can irritate the respiratory tract and surely suffocate in confined spaces quickly. This is real stuff done by real people. I do not know how you can claim I am ordering people to do dangerous things. I am in fact warning them of the actual dangers of pressurized gas cylinders, the surface of said cylinders do contain oxygen and other contaminants. These contaminants are absorbed into the pure gases.

If that belongs in the this can't be true area, I am not the fool.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?
« Reply #58 on: 02/10/2016 20:30:34 »

That is how hard they make it, they consistently remove evidence about the past. I fight with the conspiracy theorists .... I fight with with people who claim to be scientists, ... When does reality win? I fight with UFO believers...



You fight everybody.
If you had evidence, you would win the fight.
You make absurd claims about science the, when you are called to account, you wander off into nonsense.

You seem unable to understand that you are simply wrong.

How do you explain the observation that you think that science was better years ago- but nobody else thinks that?

If you think you are the only one who is right- well, let's just say there are words for that.

Lastly, I'm not going to let this (repeated) bit of dangerous nonsense pass.
You say"During hydronic pipe freezing operations using very pure liquid CO2, being poured onto a hot water pipe that was leaking, I was in a cloud of CO2 and water vapor for some time with no ill effect."

Well, if there was no air, you would be dead.
Also, liquid CO2 does not exist at atmospheric pressure. your stupidly dangerous claim to have been pouring it is physically impossible.
http://www.chemicalogic.com/Documents/co2_phase_diagram.pdf


It's not impurities in the gas that make the difference. It's the volume and how much air it gets mixed with.
Your statement clearly belongs in the "that can't be true" forum.
Others will judge on the issue of who is a fool- but anyone who implies they don't need air to breathe looks that way to me.
« Last Edit: 02/10/2016 20:41:15 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?
« Reply #59 on: 02/10/2016 21:19:28 »

That is how hard they make it, they consistently remove evidence about the past. I fight with the conspiracy theorists .... I fight with with people who claim to be scientists, ... When does reality win? I fight with UFO believers...



You fight everybody.
If you had evidence, you would win the fight.
You make absurd claims about science the, when you are called to account, you wander off into nonsense.

You seem unable to understand that you are simply wrong.

How do you explain the observation that you think that science was better years ago- but nobody else thinks that?

If you think you are the only one who is right- well, let's just say there are words for that.

Lastly, I'm not going to let this (repeated) bit of dangerous nonsense pass.
You say"During hydronic pipe freezing operations using very pure liquid CO2, being poured onto a hot water pipe that was leaking, I was in a cloud of CO2 and water vapor for some time with no ill effect."

Well, if there was no air, you would be dead.
Also, liquid CO2 does not exist at atmospheric pressure. your stupidly dangerous claim to have been pouring it is physically impossible.
http://www.chemicalogic.com/Documents/co2_phase_diagram.pdf


It's not impurities in the gas that make the difference. It's the volume and how much air it gets mixed with.
Your statement clearly belongs in the "that can't be true" forum.
Others will judge on the issue of who is a fool- but anyone who implies they don't need air to breathe looks that way to me.

If you are aware of pipe freezing apparatus, you know that there is a siphon tube in the liquid CO2 container, that brings liquid to the collar through a hose, that is applied to the pipe that you wish to freeze. There it evaporates absorbing heat from the pipe, just like in refrigeration systems. I do not know where you get your information from, I personally do this stuff. You can buy the equipment to do this stuff commercially from large manufacturers. So I do see any need to prove myself.

As far as liquid CO2 coming out, it is liquid I have gotten it on me several times it is cold. There is a certain amount of pressure and a certain lowered ambient temperature created by the release of liquid CO2. Again if you have doubts try google.

If you are worried about danger you would warn of oxides on the surface of metals. And other contaminates. When you remove the surface of what most would call a clean or totally sanitary stainless steel surface, there is a lot of oxidation present. That is how the metal exists. Without the oxidation there would be no metal. It would react to nothing.

The tank the pure liquid noble gases are put in have contaminants, however the liquid product, will expand exponentially creating a ratio of noble gas to tank surface contaminant that is extremely high. Much higher than a cylinder with the same contaminants and a small amount of pure gas input. The amount of contaminants in gaseous cylinders has surprised highly trained experts.

You should acknowledge oxides and other contaminants on the walls of all metal cylinders, that can save lives.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline William McC

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 158
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?
« Reply #60 on: 02/10/2016 21:35:38 »

That is how hard they make it, they consistently remove evidence about the past. I fight with the conspiracy theorists .... I fight with with people who claim to be scientists, ... When does reality win? I fight with UFO believers...



You fight everybody.
If you had evidence, you would win the fight.
You make absurd claims about science the, when you are called to account, you wander off into nonsense.

You seem unable to understand that you are simply wrong.

How do you explain the observation that you think that science was better years ago- but nobody else thinks that?

If you think you are the only one who is right- well, let's just say there are words for that.

Lastly, I'm not going to let this (repeated) bit of dangerous nonsense pass.
You say"During hydronic pipe freezing operations using very pure liquid CO2, being poured onto a hot water pipe that was leaking, I was in a cloud of CO2 and water vapor for some time with no ill effect."

Well, if there was no air, you would be dead.
Also, liquid CO2 does not exist at atmospheric pressure. your stupidly dangerous claim to have been pouring it is physically impossible.
http://www.chemicalogic.com/Documents/co2_phase_diagram.pdf


It's not impurities in the gas that make the difference. It's the volume and how much air it gets mixed with.
Your statement clearly belongs in the "that can't be true" forum.
Others will judge on the issue of who is a fool- but anyone who implies they don't need air to breathe looks that way to me.

You are playing dangerous word games. You claim that my understanding that basic science was better years ago, is only understood by me, and that some large body of amazingly intelligent sorts that account for everyone else do not feel that way. Well if this large body of geniuses exist they should try building something of quality. Or some of the things we built in the 50's.

As far as needing a medium to remove carbonic acid from your lungs you certainly do. As far as needing 21 percent oxygen, some deep sea sub experiments put that into serious question.

Cowardice and intelligence are on two different ends of the spectrum.

Sincerely,

William McCormick
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8655
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?
« Reply #61 on: 02/10/2016 21:53:19 »

If you are aware of pipe freezing apparatus, you know that there is a siphon tube in the liquid CO2 container, that brings liquid to the collar through a hose, that is applied to the pipe that you wish to freeze. There it evaporates absorbing heat from the pipe, just like in refrigeration systems. I do not know where you get your information from, I personally do this stuff. You can buy the equipment to do this stuff commercially from large manufacturers. So I do see any need to prove myself.

As far as liquid CO2 coming out, it is liquid I have gotten it on me several times it is cold. There is a certain amount of pressure and a certain lowered ambient temperature created by the release of liquid CO2. Again if you have doubts try google.

If you are worried about danger you would warn of oxides on the surface of metals. And other contaminates. When you remove the surface of what most would call a clean or totally sanitary stainless steel surface, there is a lot of oxidation present. That is how the metal exists. Without the oxidation there would be no metal. It would react to nothing.

The tank the pure liquid noble gases are put in have contaminants, however the liquid product, will expand exponentially creating a ratio of noble gas to tank surface contaminant that is extremely high. Much higher than a cylinder with the same contaminants and a small amount of pure gas input. The amount of contaminants in gaseous cylinders has surprised highly trained experts.

You should acknowledge oxides and other contaminants on the walls of all metal cylinders, that can save lives.

Sincerely,

William McCormick

I take it that you don't understand how to read a phase diagram like the one I cited.
Liquid CO2 does not exist at atmospheric pressure.
On the other hand, I have used one of those pipe freezer kits.
It was based on freon.
http://www.free-instruction-manuals.com/pdf/p3071591.pdf

That's my point; you simply keep getting stuff wrong and introducing irrelevancies like hyperbaric conditions in an attempt to cover up for your mistakes.

For the record re. "If you are worried about danger you would warn of oxides on the surface of metals."
Metal oxides are generally not volatile and will stay stuck to the wall of the tank. The other dominant contaminants are water - which isn't toxic and grease which tend to stay put (like the oxides).
I'm willing to be that  you have never had occasion to analyse the inside of a gas cylinder. I have.


Re."You claim that my understanding that basic science was better years ago, is only understood by me, and that some large body of amazingly intelligent sorts that account for everyone else do not feel that way. Well if this large body of geniuses exist they should try building something of quality. Or some of the things we built in the 50's.
"

I presume that, since you think science was better in the 1950s you are using a 1950s computer to type this.
Or do you accept that, in fact, we do science better now.
« Last Edit: 02/10/2016 21:59:08 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline Alex Siqueira

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 142
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?
« Reply #62 on: 03/10/2016 01:19:57 »
Magnets gentlemans, magnets...

 I got a question, if it's possible to use a secundary magnetic field, wich the magnets are in motion (spining), in order to use this secundary magnetic field in order to interact with another static one, in consideration the static field I'm refering is compost by two por more equal magnets locked on so that their fields are constantly repeling one the other, use the secundary field that is spining to disturbing it's balance, shaping and redirecting  it?

 I'm imaging two repelant magnetic field as forming partial waves like when two rocks fall on a lake, if so, could another field exerce disturbance enought to reshape such waves into a spining, perhaps conic flat surface (Field)?

 Like if the lake had no depth, and the rock instead of falling on it more like hovering the lake, producing the same effect but with motion, would this create some sort of spiral over the lake surface?
 Or magneticfields only seems to behave like spherical fields, how do a magnetic field really looks like on a practical model?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: QotW - 07.12.09 - Power Source for Magnets?
« Reply #62 on: 03/10/2016 01:19:57 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums