THE WASP-18b & Space Probes Mysteries

[dafydd]

No, you don't.

In the case of moving Bjarnes' 10Newton cow (1N is about 100g, so it is a mighty small - or slippery - cow), the energy is proportional to the distance you need to move the cow, hence N X d. Or force X distance.

In the case of Bjarne's hovering rocket, the energy is proportional to the time we want it to hover. Hence N X t, or force X time. And, of course, times the efficiency of the rocket engine.

So again, there is no direct conversion between force and energy. You always need an additional scalar.

Hans

Do you really think that Bjarne knows what a scalar is?

 

[Reality Check]

Then we finally agreed.

No we do not.
You: you can equalize a force with energy
Me: you can equalize a force with by creating another force by expending energy.

The key point is that energy is not equalizing force. A force is being applied to equalize the force. That force can be created by applying energy, e.g. heating up a gas and allowing it to escape from a rocket engine.

 

[Bjarne]

You: you can equalize a force with energy
Me: you can equalize a force with by creating another force by expending energy.

Exactly, these could have been my words.

Do you really think that Bjarne knows what a scalar is?

I think it is a device you in the one end can fasten to a three and the other end to you car.

If you know the energy losses (due to heat etc..) and the total energy output, you can now measure the netto energy it takes to create that force you can read at the scale…
After finishing you can tell me who many (netto) joules there is on one Newton.

 

[Reality Check]

Exactly, these could have been my words.

Then why did you not use them instead of "you can equalize a force with energy" which is obviously nonsense?
Equalize mans that you put two things equal. Force is never equal to energy. Force is never even proportional to energy. The closest that you get is that mechanical work (a change in energy) is equal to the integration of the force vector along the path:

(2)
where:

is the path or curve traversed by the object;

is the force vector; and

is the position vector

(and the dot is the dot product of the 2 vectors).

But now we agree that energy cannot equalize force and that it is the force from the expending of energy that can equalize force. This is basic physics.
What is the point?

 

[Reality Check]

If you know the energy losses (due to heat etc..) and the total energy output, you can now measure the netto energy it takes to create that force you can read at the scale…
After finishing you can tell me who many (netto) joules there is on one Newton.

You ignorance is showing again (if it is humor then you need a ).
A scalar quantity is a number.

 

[Aitch]

Do you really think that Bjarne knows what a scalar is?

Wasn't he the bad guy in Heroes?

 

[Bjarne]

The closest that you get is that mechanical work (a change in energy) is equal to the integration of the force vector along the path:

And I think you excactly knows what I mean...

 

[Reality Check]

And I think you excactly knows what I mean...

And I think that you have no idea what you mean...

 

[steenkh]

If you know the energy losses (due to heat etc..) and the total energy output, you can now measure the netto energy it takes to create that force you can read at the scale…

Complete nonsense.

You can calculate how much energy is expended using a certain method of creating a force, like a with rocket engine. If you use another method, the energy expended would be different. As you have been told, some methods do not require any energy at all!

 

[Bjarne]

There is no power needed in an ideal system to keep charged particles orbiting in a magnetic field.

It seems to me that this answer is a contradiction…

1.Exsample 1.
Let’s say that the particles are moving straight, in that case I could understand that you could claim that it would require no energy to keep the particles moving almost with c.

2.Exsample 2.
BUT when moving the particles in an orbit (with same speed as in example 1), you wrote the LHC use between 220 or 300 MW.

The only different is only the trajectories are different. Why do you need to use 220 or 300 MW to maintains the particle speed in a orbit and not when moving the particles straight..

According to example 1. - I understand you could claim you could cut off the power and the particles would continue with the same speed.

But you can’t do that in example 2. – And in fact you do used 220 or 300 MW, how can you claim it require no power to keep the particles moving in a orbit

 

[MRC_Hans]

Do you really think that Bjarne knows what a scalar is?

No. However, despite Bjarne's obvious ingnorance, a scalar remains a scalar.

Which seems to be a central problem in Bjarne's perception of the world.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

It seems to me that this answer is a contradiction…

1.Exsample 1.
Let’s say that the particles are moving straight, in that case I could understand that you could claim that it would require no energy to keep the particles moving almost with c.

2.Exsample 2.
BUT when moving the particles in an orbit (with same speed as in example 1), you wrote the LHC use between 220 or 300 MW.

The only different is only the trajectories are different. Why do you need to use 220 or 300 MW to maintains the particle speed in a orbit and not when moving the particles straight..

According to example 1. - I understand you could claim you could cut off the power and the particles would continue with the same speed.

But you can’t do that in example 2. – And in fact you do used 220 or 300 MW, how can you claim it require no power to keep the particles moving in a orbit

Because electromagnets are another method of creating a force which uses energy. If you had permanent magnets, you could circle the particles endlessly without using energy at all, because permanent magnets can excert a force without using energy.

It is like your rocket picture: To create a force with a rocket engine costs energy, but you could build a tower and place the rocket on it, and it could stand there forever.

1.Exsample 1.
Let’s say that the particles are moving straight, in that case I could understand that you could claim that it would require no energy to keep the particles moving almost with c.

SO you have given up on your kinetic resistance?

Hans

 

[dafydd]

deleted

 

[Reality Check]

It seems to me that this answer is a contradiction…

1.Exsample 1.
Let’s say that the particles are moving straight, in that case I could understand that you could claim that it would require no energy to keep the particles moving almost with c.

2.Exsample 2.
BUT when moving the particles in an orbit (with same speed as in example 1), you wrote the LHC use between 220 or 300 MW.

The only different is only the trajectories are different. Why do you need to use 220 or 300 MW to maintains the particle speed in a orbit and not when moving the particles straight..

According to example 1. - I understand you could claim you could cut off the power and the particles would continue with the same speed.

But you can’t do that in example 2. – And in fact you do used 220 or 300 MW, how can you claim it require no power to keep the particles moving in a orbit

The LHC does not use 220 or 300 MW. It uses 220 to 300 MW when it is operating.
The LHC uses electrical power to

• Cool the superconducting magnets (a major use of the electricity) with about 96 tonnes of liquid helium.
• Power the magnets.
• Accelerate the particles.
• Power the detectors.
• Run the lights.
• Run the computers.
• Etc. etc. etc.

There is no power needed in an ideal losseless system to keep charged particles orbiting in a magnetic field. All you need are moving charged particles and a magnetic field:

​

(not that you know what F, q, v, x or B are or why F, v and B are in bold). The magnetic field can come from a permanent magnet (no power needed).

In a real storage ring power is used to create the magnetic field and replace losses such as synchrotron radiation.
Particle accelerator

For some applications, it is useful to store beams of high energy particles for some time (with modern high vacuum technology, up to many hours) without further acceleration. This is especially true for colliding beam accelerators, in which two beams moving in opposite directions are made to collide with each other, with a large gain in effective collision energy. Because relatively few collisions occur at each pass through the intersection point of the two beams, it is customary to first accelerate the beams to the desired energy, and then store them in storage rings, which are essentially synchrotron rings of magnets, with no significant RF power for acceleration.

If you cut the power in the LHC then the magnets heat up and lose their magnetic field. The particles then go straight and hit the ring walls.

 

[Reality Check]

The last 2 posts point out a bad habit of Bjarne - he never properly quotes posts.

Bjarne, The proper way to quote a post is to use the Quote button. That way you get a link back to the post and "Originally Posted by XXXX" to make it easier to see who you replied to.

 

[steenkh]

The last 2 posts point out a bad habit of Bjarne - he never properly quotes posts.

He also often quotes different people in the same post without making it clear when he switches his attention to a new person.

 

[Bjarne]

All you need are moving charged particles and a magnetic field:

And how much of the energy 220 to 300 MW do you think is used to Power the magnets
Is it more than 90 % do you belive ?

 

[Dancing David]

And I think you excactly knows what I mean...

Now see this is a common issue here at the JREF, you think you know what you mean, and maybe you do. But we haven't a clue except the words that you right. If you do not express yourself well and carefully, then we really still don't know what you think.

But as my mother (a writing teacher) used to say "If you can't write well, then you don't really know what you think."

 

[Dancing David]

And how much of the energy 220 to 300 MW do you think is used to Power the magnets
Is it more than 90 % do you belive ?

Maybe you should go back and read what Cuddles wrote, instead of ignoring it and asking questions that he answered, as well as RC.

 

[Cuddles]

Maybe you should go back and read what Cuddles wrote

This is a phrase that just isn't used often enough.