| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Donald G. Shead" |
| Date: |
17 Aug 2003 04:50:39 PM |
| Object: |
Energy Sources |
Whenever "energy" is discussed, it's almost sure to be about coal, oil, or
gas. These are the sources of most of the energy that go into making up
physical energy: The forces applied by humans and machines that have so
greatly changed our standard of living.
It takes a lot of these sources to do all the things that we do: Including
being able to furnish the technology and machinery required: Not to mention
the brainpower that these sources helped to provide, with food, books,
computers and tool production in general...
Is it any wonder [greedy] humans fight over energy?
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy Sources |
17 Aug 2003 06:02:19 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
Whenever "energy" is discussed, it's almost sure to be about coal, oil, or
gas.
Hey ***** - hydroelectric, fission; windmills, solar. Jackass.
These are the sources of most of the energy that go into making up
physical energy: The forces applied by humans and machines that have so
greatly changed our standard of living.
Fucking imbecile. You don't even have internally consistent units.
[snip]
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald Stepp" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy Sources |
17 Aug 2003 07:16:49 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3F40097B.AD940019@hate.spam.net...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
Whenever "energy" is discussed, it's almost sure to be about coal,
oil, or
gas.
Hey ***** - hydroelectric, fission; windmills, solar. Jackass.
These are the sources of most of the energy that go into making up
physical energy: The forces applied by humans and machines that
have so
greatly changed our standard of living.
Fucking imbecile. You don't even have internally consistent units.
[snip]
That's what I was thinking, I actually winced when he said, "physical
energy" and "forces applied by humans and machines" in the same
sentence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Energy: Potential & Kinetic |
17 Aug 2003 07:30:11 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3F40097B.AD940019@hate.spam.net...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
Whenever "energy" is discussed, it's almost sure to be about coal, oil,
or
gas.
Hey ***** - hydroelectric, fission; windmills, solar. Jackass.
And you probably have few ideas of how these energy sources you mention
transmit _impulses_ to turn the wheels of progress. Do you know about
internal and external fission engines and the workings of modern water
turbines and the application of solar and wind energy?
These are the sources of most of the energy that go into making up
physical energy: The forces applied by humans and machines that have so
greatly changed our standard of living.
The sources mentioned above have the _potential_ to produce energy, but its
the actual _kinetic_ energy that they are capable of transmitting, as
impulses that comprise the actual energy used. The impulses cause mechanical
displacements that are variously connected to the motors that actually
produce the desired results; be it running construction, manufacturing or
office equipment.
The impulse - the product of a mechanical thrust and its duration [ft] -
divided by the rate of displacement [s/t] that it causes to a particular
object; body, or mass of matter is a constant: m = ft/(s/t) = 2f/a = w/g;
which is a measure of mass, and/or energy: I think(:-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy: Potential & Kinetic |
17 Aug 2003 07:39:16 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3F40097B.AD940019@hate.spam.net...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
Whenever "energy" is discussed, it's almost sure to be about coal, oil,
or
gas.
Hey ***** - hydroelectric, fission; windmills, solar. Jackass.
And you probably have few ideas of how these energy sources you mention
transmit _impulses_ to turn the wheels of progress.
[snip]
Direct current, *****. Batteries. No pulses.
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy: Potential & Kinetic |
17 Aug 2003 08:14:05 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3F402034.403E8B43@hate.spam.net...
Direct current, snip< Batteries. No pulses.
Horse men knew her Unk: Just as most of us know that you're a dumass!
You must not have built any direct current battery motors, or generators
when you were a kid; or you'd know darn well that they use armatures to
produce impulses; that give them torque.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy: Potential & Kinetic |
18 Aug 2003 11:26:34 AM |
|
|
"Paul Cardinale" <pcardinale@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:64050551.0308180605.13764504@posting.google.com...
Cut<
Idiot. You know less about electricity and motors than does a goat.
Paul Cardinale
What kind? Billy or Mountain? Who cares anyway?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Cardinale" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy: Potential & Kinetic |
18 Aug 2003 04:28:39 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" <u10889@snet.net> wrote in message news:<_670b.26721$Vx2.12255823@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com>...
"Paul Cardinale" <pcardinale@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:64050551.0308180605.13764504@posting.google.com...
Cut<
Idiot. You know less about electricity and motors than does a goat.
Paul Cardinale
What kind? Billy or Mountain?
Nanny.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy: Potential & Kinetic |
18 Aug 2003 11:35:42 AM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
"Paul Cardinale" <pcardinale@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:64050551.0308180605.13764504@posting.google.com...
Cut<
Idiot. You know less about electricity and motors than does a goat.
Paul Cardinale
What kind? Billy or Mountain? Who cares anyway?
Perhaps "old goat"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Donald G. Shead" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy: Potential & Kinetic |
17 Aug 2003 08:56:12 PM |
|
|
"dlzc@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:_QV%a.4695$Qy4.4334@fed1read05...
An armature can also produce a more or less constant torque. No "impulse"
is required.
David A. Smith
How David? Are you sure your not talking about a short circuit(;^?
.
|
|
|
| User: "\formerly" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy: Potential & Kinetic |
17 Aug 2003 11:42:26 PM |
|
|
Dear Donald G. Shead:
"Donald G. Shead" <u10889@snet.net> wrote in message
news:0nW%a.26612$Vx2.12114803@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
"dlzc@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:_QV%a.4695$Qy4.4334@fed1read05...
An armature can also produce a more or less constant torque. No
"impulse"
is required.
How David? Are you sure your not talking about a short circuit(;^?
The fields don't quite line up. The amount of torque increases to a
maximum, then decreases (as the poles line up), then reverses (assuming
your commutator doesn't work). No impulse required for "simple" motors.
David A. Smith
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy: Potential & Kinetic |
17 Aug 2003 09:10:28 PM |
|
|
Donald G. Shead wrote:
"dlzc@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:_QV%a.4695$Qy4.4334@fed1read05...
An armature can also produce a more or less constant torque. No "impulse"
is required.
David A. Smith
How David? Are you sure your not talking about a short circuit(;^?
Ever seen a homopolar motor? Dead short, no impulses,
plenty of torque. And don't quibble about magnets; ever seen
a self-exciting homopolar motor?
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Fergerson" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy: Potential & Kinetic |
19 Aug 2003 05:01:00 PM |
|
|
Donald G. Shead wrote:
"Mark Fergerson" <mfergerson1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3F403594.4070601@cox.net...
Donald G. Shead wrote:
"dlzc@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:_QV%a.4695$Qy4.4334@fed1read05...
An armature can also produce a more or less constant torque. No
"impulse"
is required.
David A. Smith
How David? Are you sure your not talking about a short circuit(;^?
Ever seen a homopolar motor? Dead short, no impulses,
plenty of torque. And don't quibble about magnets; ever seen
a self-exciting homopolar motor?
They sound like energy hogs; produce lots of heat?
They're the only true DC class of motors and generators,
and are very old (descended from the Faraday disk); I'm
surprised you're not familiar with them.
Download and read the relevant pdf from:
http://www.mae.ncsu.edu/courses/Mae535/buckner/reports.html
(middle of the page)
They can achieve 99% efficiency, but in high-power
applications they can generate a lot of heat since the rotor
current is basically across a dead short. Still, the USN is
very interested in them for nuke sub use mainly because they
make so little acoustical and electrical noise:
http://www.dt.navy.mil/pao/excerpts%20pages/1997/supercond11.html
even considering that they're planning to go a
superconducting (LN, not LHe) rotor to eliminate the heat
generation, it's impressive as hell considering a rotor
current of over 40 kA. That's forty THOUSAND amperes. Note
that high currents at low voltage are typical for homopolar
motors.
Note also that for smaller motors one need not use fancy
electrodes (exotic and/or liquid metals) at the rim; back in
the "old days" Tesla devised a two-rotor setup with a
conducting belt connecting the two rotors' rims. I've seen
another that simply counter-rotated the rotors and let them
touch. In both designs the only rubbing contact was at each
rotor's hub.
Mind you some people are working on impulse-driven
versions for power storage purposes, but are having all
sorts of trouble because homopolars don't _like_ to operate
that way.
Mark L. Fergerson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ronald Stepp" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy: Potential & Kinetic |
17 Aug 2003 08:07:01 PM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3F402034.403E8B43@hate.spam.net...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3F40097B.AD940019@hate.spam.net...
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
Whenever "energy" is discussed, it's almost sure to be about
coal, oil,
or
gas.
Hey ***** - hydroelectric, fission; windmills, solar.
Jackass.
And you probably have few ideas of how these energy sources you
mention
transmit _impulses_ to turn the wheels of progress.
[snip]
Direct current, *****. Batteries. No pulses.
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
Don't bother him with the real world Al..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Energy Sources |
17 Aug 2003 09:18:33 PM |
|
|
"Donald G. Shead" wrote:
Whenever "energy" is discussed, it's almost sure to be about coal, oil, or
gas. These are the sources of most of the energy that go into making up
physical energy: The forces applied by humans and machines that have so
greatly changed our standard of living.
It takes a lot of these sources to do all the things that we do: Including
being able to furnish the technology and machinery required: Not to mention
the brainpower that these sources helped to provide, with food, books,
computers and tool production in general...
Is it any wonder [greedy] humans fight over energy?
When "energy" in a physics newsgroup is more often about energy as an
abstract quantity of extreme usefulness in physics because it is defined
in such a way that the total energy of any closed physical system is always
constant (conservation of energy).
Energy
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Energy.html
Conservation of Energy
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/ConservationofEnergy.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
