Electromagnetic field theory. Q and A

Mr.Hans,

I see no reason for your this type of irritation except that it is becoming more & more indicative that homeopathic scientific effects are there. Whatever, I mentioned are just other words of these discussions.

Moreover, trituration for two hours of each 'X potencies' means something--and that will be for 6, 12, 24,60,400 hours for 3X,6X,12X,30X & 200X potencies (1X 2hrs each). Heat/photons so generated can be much more than sun-rays or other radiations which can cause permanent effect. I think you are just trying to ignore this aspect not me.
 
Kumar said:
Mr.Hans,

I see no reason for your this type of irritation except that it is becoming more & more indicative that homeopathic scientific effects are there. Whatever, I mentioned are just other words of these discussions.
Click to expand...

That might be because you are not doing the hard work of addressing the questions thoroughly, only to be met by repetition of the same nonsense. Listen to the answers and ask intelligent questions or raise real, contrary evidence. Not naive speculations heavily biased in favor of your own foregone conclusions.
 
When Kumar was new to the board, and first heard about the million dollars, he was all for giving it a try.

Then he thought about it and backed off.

If it's so obvious these effects are there, how come the money is still going begging?

But it's a shame to hijack this excellent thread, Kumar. If you've nothing to say apart from your continual unfounded assertions that homoeopathy works, why not keep out of it?

Rolfe.
 
Hi BH, Rolfe,

When you are not hijacking my exellent threads, how I am hijacking it. As my discussions in this thread are concluded, I may not be furthur required to enter/interfere in it.

Bye!


;)
 
The Don said:
Did i miss these among all the others about tissue salts ? :)
Click to expand...

Just add salt. It brings out the taste and highlights the excellent threads. Also good for red wine stains.
 
BH,

If you say so, I put a differant question:-

By passing magnetic effect from one source(say a permanent magnet) to another magnetic material (say iron), Does the magnetic effect in first source diminish in any way or total magnetic effect is increased if we add magnetic effect of both alike fire spreads? Is it also applicable similarily to other energies?
 
I feel obliged to answer this question, because it is, after all, on topic.

Kumar:
Q: By passing magnetic effect from one source(say a permanent magnet) to another magnetic material (say iron), Does the magnetic effect in first source diminish in any way or total magnetic effect is increased if we add magnetic effect of both alike fire spreads? Is it also applicable similarily to other energies?

A: A magnet field represents an energy. It is not energy itself (it is a force), but to create a magnet field, some energy must be invested, which is then bound in the field.

When you magnetize a piece of steel by moving a permanent magnet along it, the magnet does not loose any strength, so where does the energy for the new magnet field come from? It comes from the motion of the magnet. You spend energy moving the two objects. There is a resistance has to be overcome, and it is this energy that goes into the fresh field.

So, similar to all other types of energy, the law of conservation of enegy implies.

Hans
 
Mr.Hans,

Many thanks for this post.

Do you mean to say that applied energy is then stored in iron piece? Is there no heat loss in this?

Furthur, when we keep an iron piece in magnetic field then also it become magnetic. There is no applied energy to it. How then this energy come from?
 
Kumar:

Q: Do you mean to say that applied energy is then stored in iron piece? Is there no heat loss in this?

A: There is plenty of loss. The amount of mechanical energy needed to create a small field like this is so small that you'd never feel the resistance.

Q: Furthur, when we keep an iron piece in magnetic field then also it become magnetic. There is no applied energy to it. How then this energy come from?

A: Yes, there is energy applied to it, and it is essentially the same as before: When you put the iron piece near to the magnet, it is being attracted to it, you might say it "goes downhill" magnetically speaking. Then you leave it there for some time, and when you return to remove it, it has become magnetized; it will have a south pole adjacent to the north pole of the magnet, and vice versa. This means that the attraction between the magnet and the iron piece (now a magnet too) will be greater, it will have crept farther "downhill". To remove it, you need to use more energy than you (theooretically) received when you neared it to the magnet; you will have lost energy, and that energy is now bound in the new magnet field.

(how come I have a hunch I'm gonna regret this?)

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Kumar:

Q: Do you mean to say that applied energy is then stored in iron piece? Is there no heat loss in this?

A: There is plenty of loss. The amount of mechanical energy needed to create a small field like this is so small that you'd never feel the resistance.

Q: Furthur, when we keep an iron piece in magnetic field then also it become magnetic. There is no applied energy to it. How then this energy come from?

A: Yes, there is energy applied to it, and it is essentially the same as before: When you put the iron piece near to the magnet, it is being attracted to it, you might say it "goes downhill" magnetically speaking. Then you leave it there for some time, and when you return to remove it, it has become magnetized; it will have a south pole adjacent to the north pole of the magnet, and vice versa. This means that the attraction between the magnet and the iron piece (now a magnet too) will be greater, it will have crept farther "downhill". To remove it, you need to use more energy than you (theooretically) received when you neared it to the magnet; you will have lost energy, and that energy is now bound in the new magnet field.

(how come I have a hunch I'm gonna regret this?)

Hans
Click to expand...
Mr.Hans,

Thanks again. However, I just remember that people here & there denied that applied Kinetic Energy on rubbing two material can't be stored as Potencial Energy in those material & will be just lost as heat.

Anyway, Pls tell one important & interesting aspects:-

"Can magnetic or other form of energies propagate & spread on any carrier, if a carrying media is kept in contact with these energies?"

Eg. seed in soil, fire on woods/fuels, plant propagations, reproductions, magnet-iron contact, light-darkness etc.
 
MRC_Hans said:
A: Yes, there is energy applied to it, and it is essentially the same as before: When you put the iron piece near to the magnet, it is being attracted to it, you might say it "goes downhill" magnetically speaking. Then you leave it there for some time, and when you return to remove it, it has become magnetized; it will have a south pole adjacent to the north pole of the magnet, and vice versa. This means that the attraction between the magnet and the iron piece (now a magnet too) will be greater, it will have crept farther "downhill". To remove it, you need to use more energy than you (theooretically) received when you neared it to the magnet; you will have lost energy, and that energy is now bound in the new magnet field.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the energy to put into the field is not spent until later, when the iron piece is taken out of the magnet field? When does the magnetization happen?

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
(how come I have a hunch I'm gonna regret this?)
Click to expand...
You should write Darat. There seems to be something wrong with your ignore list, or you would not have had this opportunity for regret ;)
 
When the iron is placed into a field, it becomes energetically favorable for the domains in the metal to align with the domains in the field. You put energy in by placing the bar in the field, and you require energy to pull them apart. The magnetization happens gradually, as I'm sure there are some other kinetic effects.

It would be an interesting experiment to measure the rate constants for that.
 
MRC_Hans said:
To remove it, you need to use more energy than you (theooretically) received when you neared it to the magnet; you will have lost energy, and that energy is now bound in the new magnet field.

What happens till we don't remove the iron from magnet? One side you say that we recieved energy in keeping iron near the magnet, on the other side magnetic effect is stored (mean more energy) in iron piece.

It means that applied excess kinetic energy by us in seprating the iron from magnet is bounded as Potential energy in new magnetic field and so bounding this way of energy is possible. Is it ok?

(how come I have a hunch I'm gonna regret this?)

You can't so you can ignore it.

;)
Click to expand...
 
steenkh:
Q: Are you saying that the energy to put into the field is not spent until later, when the iron piece is taken out of the magnet field? When does the magnetization happen?

A: No, that is not what happens. It happens, of course as the iron is neared to the magnet and while it is stored next to it. The field from the magnet is drawn into the the iron, more and more as it gets magnetized, In a way it "borrows" energy from the magnet. When you pull them apart, the magnet fields unfold again, and the energy is returned, supplied by them mechanical force you need to pull them apart.


You should write Darat. There seems to be something wrong with your ignore list, or you would not have had this opportunity for regret ;)

Yes, perhaps I can make him remove the "veiw this post" button ;) :rolleyes:

Hans
 
And Kumar: I notice that you are in fact capable of both writing coherent English and of applying logic, so at such time when you are ready to do that consistently and not only when it serves your purpose to twist and bend information to support your preconceived ideas, PM me, mail me or something, and I might correspond with you again.

Until then, cherio!

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
And Kumar: I notice that you are in fact capable of both writing coherent English and of applying logic, so at such time when you are ready to do that consistently and not only when it serves your purpose to twist and bend information to support your preconceived ideas, PM me, mail me or something, and I might correspond with you again.

Until then, cherio!

Hans
Click to expand...

Mr.Hans,

I can understand it. When an aspect comes near to some conclusion & if we don't like it to be concluded--this type behaviour in normal.

Anyway, still you contributed much, to make me understand it & conclude it, as I mentioned in other topic. I can now understand that 'energy can propagte, spread AND applied KE can be stored as PE. Many thanks. :)
 
Kumar said:
I can now understand that 'energy can propagte, spread AND applied KE can be stored as PE.
Click to expand...
You seem only to understand what you want to understand! For instance, you choose not to understand that these concepts do not apply to your pet theories.

Hans,
I have a silly on-topic question (to fill the time until Roger turns up, if ever): What are the necessary properties for a material so that you can use it for an antenna. Is it for instance possible to construct an antenna out of water?
 
steenkh:

Q: What are the necessary properties for a material so that you can use it for an antenna. Is it for instance possible to construct an antenna out of water?

A: Conductivity. For instance, a human is not a bad antenna; I'm sure most people have had the experience of a transistor radio or a TV set that worked best as long as somebody held on the the aereal. So, water is a distinct possibility.

If the material does not have good condutivity, the antenna gets lossy. This is normally a draw-back, but not always; a mismatched antenna may perform acceptably as long as the loss is high, but will give trouble if replaced with material with lower loss.

I have experienced this first-hand: I was in the airforce then, and we had set up an antenna for long-distance communication. This was short-wave, so the antennas were wires strung between pylons, and we didn't have a suitable set of pylons anywhere on the antenna farm, so we jury-rigged something that was the best approximation. The Standing Wave Ratio (SWR) was none too good, but we could trim the transmitter to cope with it and all seemed fine. Unfortunately, we didn't get the distance range we needed, and since we had used a thin flexible type of wire (the type used for trailing antennas on planes), we though that we might get more power output if we used a better wire. So we re-rigged the antenna with some thick steel-enforced copper wire, which was used for the big stationary antennas. And when we turned it on, the transmitter went totally bananas! With the low loss, the poor SWR suddenly became a major problem.

Hans
 
pndenrgy.gif


If gravitational potential energy (GPE) have some relation with propagation of energy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom