Bender

1)force is a vector with direction, so the very tiny forces would cancel out because they pull in all directions 2)infinite sums of small parts are not necessarily infinite e.g. [math]\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{2^n} = \frac{1}{2}+ \frac{1}{4}+ \frac{1}{8}+\cdots = 1[/math]

To answer the title question: no, an equation doesn't prove anything, experiments do. However, despite many, many attempts, not a single experiment has ever been performed where conservation of energy was violated.

I haven't seen any evidence. You haven't even given a schematic of how you would create energy. What I have seen is perhaps hundreds of claims that someone could create free energy, they either refused to provide details, where unable to show evidence, or their theories were easily dismissable with basic science. So all the prior evidence concerning the violation of the laws of thermodynamics suggest that your claim is just one in a long list of exclusively failures. Adding in conspiracy theories about your evidence being blocked, just adds to the idea of you being "yet another crackpot". (with no disrespect, that is just the general category you are putting yourself in)

A rail gun has other things to tinker with, such as the optimal signal to send to the coils for different bullets/applications. The tinkering becomes electronic rather than chemical. About the weight: iron isn't much lighter than lead. Undoubtedly, people could come up with e.g. steel-tungsten alloys if necessary. Besides, when the bullet doesn't need a gunpowder container, it automatically has higher bullet weight/stored weight and bullet weight/stored volume ratios. edit: the US military beat me to it with tungsten armor-piercing bullets.

Whether you have laminar or turbulent flow depends on the Reynolds number, which depends on velocity, viscosity and density of the fluid and "characteristic dimension". The last is tricky to determine in a bend. I think "flow separation" is the term you might be looking for, where the nice laminar flow breaks loose from the surface and vortices are created. It is the same phenomenon that causes stall in airplane wings or wind turbines. Now if this is for some reason critical, you simply don't use a straight corner, but a large radius curve. Detailed paper with numerical simulations.

So not only are you claiming to have broken the laws of thermodynamics, you are also piling on some conspiracy theories... I'll pass

But what part of the lightning we see is the photons being emitted in that way, and what part is photons being emitted because the air is hot?

Is the air heated by light? I would have thought it was heated by resistive heating, in which case the heating happens first and then causes both light and sound.

Indeed, the holes in the clog could be small enough for capillary forces to withstand a little bit of pressure from only water in the lower tubes, but not from the additional pressure of more water on top of it. Or you have poorly installed piping which drains upwards and traps the water that way. That would also explain why it gets clogged there.

The air in lightning gets considerably hotter than the sun. I assume that to be the primary source of the light. In other words: as soon as the air is heated, you have lightning. Then again, it depends on defining when lightning and thunder start. Heating the air initiates both the emission of photons and the emission of a pressure wave, aka thunder. So while the time constant of the light being emitted is much smaller than for the sound wave, they are both initiated by the same event.

Moreover, it is the heating which happens nearly instantaneous. The movement of air can only happen after the heating.

No, it isn't. H depends on the relative permeability, which can be 10^6 for pure iron. It is B which has to be constant throughout the loop (asuming no leakage and constant cross section )

Those only interested in the main topic can safely ignore this, but I felt I had to address this more properly. Inside the magnet: [math]B=\mu_0 (M+H_{PM})[/math] with M the magnetisation of the magnet, (and assuming it is a rare earth magnet or another magnet with constant M in the absence of other sources of H) In the air gap: [math]B=\mu_0 H_{gap}[/math] In the iron; H is negligible. Most likely, the C-shaped magnet is a bar magnet on the right and then some iron to guide the magnetic field around. Now Ampere's law in the absence of currents or changing electrical fields: [math]\oint_{l}Hdl=0[/math] so: [math]H_{PM}l_{PM}+H_{gap}l_{gap}=0[/math] Assuming all flux goes through the air gap and, for simplicity, that the magnet and the air gap have the same surface area: [math]\mu_0 (M+H_{PM})=\mu_0 H_{gap}[/math] Combining the last two equations: [math]H_{PM}=-M \cdot \frac{l_{gap}}{l_{gap}+l_{PM}}[/math] So as the air gap increases (and thus the magnetic reluctance), the field strength H in the magnet increases and from the first equation you can see that B will decrease. [math]B=\mu_0 M \cdot(1- \frac{l_{gap}}{l_{gap}+l_{PM}})[/math] e.g. for an air gap the same size as the magnet, B will halve.

Or, more likely, Galileo for a more reliable and precise localisation by civilians.

That is not the mechanism that drives an iron core motor, because as you deducted correctly, the magnetic field doesn't go through the wires. (or not a significant amount of it anyway)

The insurance company.

Short answer: in an iron core electromotor, the torque is produced by a minimisation of the magnetic energy. This happens more efficiently when the flux is going through the iron core and the wires are essentially air gaps. They are only present to generate the interacting magnetic fields. Inside the magnet, H increases as the air gap increases. This results in a decrease in B. I can provide more details upon request and when not posting from my phone.

- even if the core is far from saturation, the leakage will decrease drastically, since the increase in flux is relatively moderate and the decrease in leakage could be orders of magnitude - the force only depends on the flux density at the wire, the flux density anywhere else has no influence.

The conclusion is right that the field and thus the force at the wire will be much less. However, the number of flux lines leaving a magnet is not fixed and depends on the magnetic reluctance and thus on the presence of an air gap. So there will be a larger flux in the magnetic loop, but less around the now none-existent air gap.

I can't open your link

The self-driving car might be better than riding along with another human driver, since the car can anticipate better and control the jerk, which makes the drive smoother. More on the point of hitting pedestrians vs concrete walls: while an individual car owner has little incentive to pay for pedestrian safety such as external airbags, it might be easier to push such things through. The car can also start breaking perhaps half a second earlier, which makes a considereable difference in survivability. The car could also hit the concrete wall in the best way possible. Most importantly, though, is that the car will keep to the speed limit of 50 km/hour in residential area's (or lower in school area's). At those speeds, there is a very high chance of stepping away from a crash into a concrete wall without major injuries.

Like I said: please enlighten me. How many people suffer from this, statistically? How debillitating is it? Can these people use other means of transportation, such as train, bus, boat or plane? How do they get around now if unable to drive themselves for whatever reason? I'll accept that it is not a fringe condition and it is worth addressing at this point if you can show me the statistics. I might even look it up myself if you could at least give me a name for this condition.

I have. I don't know anyone who has this problem. I have never even heard of this problem. Therefore, I don't think it is a big deal compared to the huge advantages. But please enlighten me if you do not agree.

When car ownership fades, car insurance will shift to the renting company, so as an individual you no longer have to bother since you are in no way responsible for any accidents (unless you did something outside the user agreement, in which case you are screwed). Perhaps you can pay extra to be included in a face-recognition library, so the car will kill the cheapest group available

In what way is that reactionless? It clearly exerts force and torque through the support. While this thread is revived: a helicopter needing tail rotors demonstrates why inertial motion is impossible.