[Bored chemist]

Vincent,
you seem to have missed this bit.
Can I just point out that Vincent is not telling the truth. He says I admitted to trolling. I didn't.
Did you think I was going to let you get away with it?

Once you explain what useful role you think dishonesty plays in science, we can get back to the other bits of nonsense you are talking (for example, I don't need to explain an anomaly that doesn't exist).

[Wilf James]

To Ophiolite
As I mentioned in my previous post, I referred to a book I used when I started a degree as an electronics and computing mature student in 1983. (I was 47 then and I am 74 now.)
(It is strange how the meaning of the same two figures changes when they are reversed.)

The book is called "Electrical Engineering Science" by M.R.Ward of the South East London Technical College.
The book's course covers electrical engineering science for the Ordinary National Certificate. It is published by McGraw-Hill.

I have re-read the section dealing with magnetism very carefully. At no point is there any reference to magnetic energy. I know from very many empirical tests that there is absolutely NO energy in magnetism. Magnetism is a form of stress in spacetime that is normally experienced as a force. In some ways it is a force like gravity. There is no energy in gravity either.

The basic terms in physics relate to power, energy, force, friction (or resistance) and work. Energy is needed to to do work. It is applied through a force. These elements of the basic mechanics aspects of physics are so elementary that I would have thought that anyone participating in this forum should know the difference between energy and a force.

The only energy associated with magnetism is the energy used to create an electric current that in turn creates the magnetism. Stop the energy supply that creates the electric current and the magnetism disappears.

The basis for a lot of the points I have made in this forum is what I call "Astronomer's Magnetism". Many astronomers glibly claim that many astronomical phenomena are caused by magnetism. I happily challenge all astronomers to prove that the magnetism associated with ionised gases does anything except constrain a plasma current to a thin jet.

A changing magnetic field can induce a current in a conductor but energy must be expended to increase the current that causes a magnetic field to increase. Then, when energy has been expended to increase a current and the consequent magnetism to a certain level, the energy expenditure can be reduced, decreasing the current and the magnetism. There is no energy in the magnetism itself.

In a transformer magnetism is just a means of transmitting energy. In this sense it is comparable to a push rod in a car engine. the push rod transmits the power delivered to a piston to a crankshaft. There is no energy in a push rod.

Almost all forms of energy can be changed to another form. Heat energy can be used to power mechanical engines. Mechanical energy can be used to operate a generator of electrical energy. Electrical energy can be used to generate heat energy. There are losses when one form of energy is converted into another form. I am very curious to know how your "magnetic energy" is produced from heat, mechanical or electrical energy or how your "magnetic energy" can be used to create mechanical, electrical or heat energy.

You are right. I claim that there is no such thing as magnetic energy. There is only a magnetic force when energy is expended to create the current that produces the magnetism and thereby the magnetic force

[JP]

To Ophiolite
As I mentioned in my previous post, I referred to a book I used when I started a degree as an electronics and computing mature student in 1983. (I was 47 then and I am 74 now.)
(It is strange how the meaning of the same two figures changes when they are reversed.)

The book is called "Electrical Engineering Science" by M.R.Ward of the South East London Technical College.
The book's course covers electrical engineering science for the Ordinary National Certificate. It is published by McGraw-Hill.

I have re-read the section dealing with magnetism very carefully. At no point is there any reference to magnetic energy. I know from very many empirical tests that there is absolutely NO energy in magnetism. Magnetism is a form of stress in spacetime that is normally experienced as a force. In some ways it is a force like gravity. There is no energy in gravity either.

I'm not sure why your book wouldn't have included magnetic energy density.  Most textbooks on electricity and magnetism do.  Anyway, it exists and is proportional to the magnitude of the magnetic field, squared.  See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Energy_density_of_electric_and_magnetic_fields

[Bored chemist]

" There is no energy in a push rod."
there is when it's moving and, unless it's moving it cannot transmit power.
" There is no energy in gravity either."
Yes there is.
E= mgh

Do you understand that, by not understanding these sorts of things, you lead to other mistakes?

Also it's not glib assertion that makes astronomers talk about magnetic fields on the sun.
They talk about them because they can measure them spectroscopically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect

We have told you this before.
Why will you not listen?


And I'm still waiting for Vincent to explain his dishonesty.

[Geezer]

The book is called "Electrical Engineering Science" by M.R.Ward of the South East London Technical College.
The book's course covers electrical engineering science for the Ordinary National Certificate.

Ah yes! The Ordinary National Certificate (aka the ONC), kindly do not under rate it. When I did mine, I think we used Shepherd, Morton and Spence. I'll see if I can find it in the "archives".

[Ophiolite]

To Wilf:
thank you for your reply. My thoughts are captured and expanded by the posts of Bored Chemist and JP.
I must echo BS's question: why will you not listen.
O.

[Paradigmer]

Vincent,
you seem to have missed this bit.
Can I just point out that Vincent is not telling the truth. He says I admitted to trolling. I didn't.

Nah. I was waiting for the moderator to clean this up.

Was observing the acceptable usage policy of this forum and therefore did not want to waste time with your this self-defeating accusation. Also, did not want to embarrass you with your self-confessed act, but since you raged on persistently with your trolling acts and there are sufficient circumstantial evidence as observed, I hereby state my stand as followed:     

I did attack a strawman by parody; I posted a couple of other strawmen.

Trolling with straw man (Note: Off-limit url, please google for it.)
Attack the straw man is an act of trolling. No amount of justification could change this fact.

Did you think I was going to let you get away with it?

Mod, please take note that this is another inflammatory statement that is deliberately violating the acceptable usage policy by takings things personally with the explicit intention to derail by the act of trolling.

Once you explain what useful role you think dishonesty plays in science,

Baseless and therefore is unsustainable. In all events, it is irrelevant as well even if you deny attacking the straw man is tantamount to the act of trolling; your fallacy of composition is incredible.

we can get back to the other bits of nonsense you are talking (for example, I don't need to explain an anomaly that doesn't exist).

You are free to opine, but I don't have to entertain your opinions that were construed with prejudice in your denial.

Mod, kindly mitigate by deleting those inflammatory statements in several posts of BC in this thread that are deliberately disregarding the acceptable usage policy, and this post as well; these are not worth the bandwidth here. TY.

[Bored chemist]

I'm sure the mods are keeping an eye on this.
In the meantime, you seem not to have noticed that I didn't admit to trolling (because I didn't).
Saying I did makes you a liar.
Saying it again "Also, did not want to embarrass you with your self-confessed act," doesn't help your case any. The mods will look through the post and see that you are saying something false.
If it were true you would presumably have quoted me saying I was trolling.

If strawmanning is a breach of the rules then at least I can say that I only did it in parody of your strawman.
If the mods decide to delete my post of a couple of videos from facebook then they will also delete your nonsense about the spouting bowl. If they do then my post did it's job.

Now, are you going to explain why you repeatedly said something that simply isn't true?

[JP]

This thread seems to have veered off into an argument rather than discussion about sunspots.  Locked.

[JP]

The thread is continued here: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=34137.0