TonyMcC

For every machine there is an input power and an output power. Because of losses in the machine the output power will always be less than the input power. This is known as less than 100 percent efficiency. So it is no use trying to use the output power to drive the machine. Usually the losses in the machine can be detected as a rise in temperature.

Using wood as fuel and growing more trees would not reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmoshere. At best, if it were the only fuel burned, it would maintain the present high levels. In practice burning coal and oil as well as wood would result in the amount in the atmoshere increasing.

It depends on what the solenoid does. The solenoid is probably the best device for your application. You could use an electric motor - but would need to switch it off at the end of the solenoid's travel, usually done with a micro-switch. If you allow the motor to stall you will probably burn it out.

I believe quite a lot of people are forecasting a great future for airships. For example unmanned military communications etc. Also slow,but cheap transport of heavy loads. I believe you can go sightseeing in an airship around Lucerne, Switzerland at the present time. Whether these aims are a waste of a valuable limited resource I suppose must be debatable.

When applied to motors and generators Fleming's rule uses fingers held mutually at right angles. Forefinger represents Field, seCond finger represents Current, and thuMb represents Motion. For generators you use the right hand and motors the left hand. As a memory aid say to yourself Gener(right)ers! If you have difficulty visualising the finger arrangement you can get full information by googling "Fleming's rules"

I understood that in the Crookes radiometer if the vanes are in a vacuum then photons bouncing off the silver side produce a very small force. However if the vacuum is partial then thermal transpiration is the main motive force (and in the opposite direction). I read that if the vanes are in a vacuum the amount of force due to photons, although real, is so small that the vanes would need frictionless bearings if they are to rotate. I have therefore to accept that the Crookes radiometer that you can buy is not really a photon driven machine - sorry!

If you want to see something moving in response to light look up "Crookes radiometer". Google will do the trick. The amount of force, however, is very small.

As I said, the logistics would be horrendous- and so therefore would be the cost and effort required over perhaps centuries. However in the end it may prove necessary to "bite the bullet". Obviously the prime thought is capture carbon and preserve it without it, however slowly, converting back to gases such as carbon dioxide. My idea is simple and would work but since hundreds of years may be needed then just letting the darn things grow may not be enough. Of course there are many ways to capture carbon and if there are better ideas "out there" then I am pleased to have raised the subject. Let's have some of those ideas.

It seems RAM upgrade is quite easy - If you google "HP netbook RAM upgrade" you will get lots of information. I think changing the cpu may be possible, but more difficult.

If just buried in damp soil at a temperature above freezing they would decay and the gases make their way to the surface. You would need to bury them below a layer of rock or clay that is impervious to gas and dome shaped to contain the gas. I don't know whether that is a more practical proposition. Perhaps preventing decay is the better alternative?

It seems that Global Warming is mainly caused by burning fossil fuels. We cannot put oil and coal back under the ground, but may be able to do something similar. The logistics of my suggestion are admittedly horrendous, but using power derived from wind or tides may make it feasible. The general idea is to trap as much carbon as possible by growing trees and then stack them where they will not decay (or at least decay extremely slowly). I suggest stacking them where temperature always remains below freezing point - i.e. near the north or south pole. This would be a huge project involving many countries and spanning many years, but should slowly reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

.

If you know a value that must be higher than the maximum possible and another value which is lower than minimum possible then a system known as the Half Split Technique is efficient. It is often used for isolating faults in complex systems. Google "Half Split Technique" for further info.

Ohm's Law gives the current, voltage and Resistance relationships you are asking about.

Two identical batteries would produce twice the SHORT CIRCUIT current. If connected to a load resistance this effect is much reduced. If the load is large compared to battery internal resistance the additional current through the load may be negligible for practical purposes.

This speculation has some similarities to the four colour map theorem. I speculate that any calculating device, including the human brain, cannot accurately calculate integer values A,B and C for the equation A^n + B^n = C^n (except where n=1 or n=2) unless provided with three pieces of information. If Fermat's last theorem is correct then he implies at least one of the given integers (A,B or C) is irrational. This leads to the thought that geometry would be the most likely means for finding a solution. (Somewhat like proofs for A^2 + B^2 = c^2). The problem here is that given A and B you cannot draw a triangle showing A, B and C unless you are provided with the included angle. This angle is different for each different pair of lines A and B and thus is a neccessary third input. A very similar arguement comes from the realisation that an analogue computer fed with sine wave inputs A and B would have no difficulty providing the reqired sine wave of value C if also fed with an angle to phase shift the other two inputs before adding them together. A phasor diagram could be imagined showing phasors A, B and C, but a phasor diagram only applies to sine waves. Being sine waves each component is the square root of "something". Therefore as well as the angle problem you have to be told that the diagram only applies to sine waves and each value is the square root of "something". Much of this speculation appears in my thread concerning simple thoughts about Fermat's Last Theorem.

surely line 2 should be ( a+B )( a-B )= a^2 - B^2 ?

Many years ago as a young(ish) radar technician we had to stop our own planes buzzing our installation. We had to point out the danger of sparks occuring in their systems. In particular we didn't like the thought that we might fire their guns for them!

I am older than most of you. I have already lived through the end of the world several times. I just hope I have enough years left to live through a few more.

Agreed Cap'n - I meant a disc image captured from a time before the virus was imported. I keep images monthly and have several on the hard disc.

You could try restoring your computer to an earlier time and scan to see if the malware program disappears. If all else fails you could do a system restore to return your computer to its state when bought but of course you lose all your programs and data - save what you can first! I have an external hard disc which I use to store a mirror image of my C drive every now and then - so far I haven't had to use it. But in your position I would try that.

I am in my 70's and have learnt a few new things. Learn a little every day is an expression I like!

As I don't believe in perpetual motion machines I agree with your first statement - I was being slightly sarcastic when I suggested that was perhaps what we had. I am going to do what is obviously unwise. I am going to express an opinion about something I have no experience of - iceboats. I do have experience of racing sailing dinghies and when tacking against the wind the actual speed of the boat can be considerably higher than the wind speed and quite exciting. However when you consider the staight line distance covered into the wind and the time taken and use those figures to calculate speed you always find the speed less than that of the wind. I believe the same must be true for iceboats. My challenge to you is to provide some reliable recorded evidence that iceboats can travel directly into the wind or, when you work your way against the wind by tacking and you calculate speed from straight line distance covered into the wind and time taken, the answer can be greater than wind speed. As I don't believe in perpetual motion machines I agree with your first statement - I was being slightly sarcastic when I suggested that was perhaps what we had. I am going to do what is obviously unwise. I am going to express an opinion about something I have no experience of - iceboats. I do have experience of racing sailing dinghies and when tacking against the wind the actual speed of the boat can be considerably higher than the wind speed and quite exciting. However when you consider the staight line distance covered into the wind and the time taken and use those figures to calculate speed you always find the speed less than that of the wind. I believe the same must be true for iceboats. My challenge to you is to provide some reliable recorded evidence that iceboats can travel directly into the wind or, when you work your way against the wind by tacking and you calculate speed from straight line distance covered into the wind and time taken, the answer can be greater than wind speed. Seems I have to apologise - done some enquiring and it seems iceboats can make distance into the wind faster than the wind if they can sail closer than 20 degrees to the wind - put it down to me not being such a good sailor lol. I didn't think anything could sail that close to the wind!

. If anyone is interested enough I would value criticism of the following line of reasoning:- I ) An alternative way of stating Fermat’s Last Theorem is “There is no incorrect integer sum A+B=C that can be corrected by raising each term by a power other than 2. )”. For example 6+8=9 is an incorrect sum that is almost corrected by raising each term by the power of 3 (216+512=729). II) Since both A and B must be smaller than C and their sum greater than C every relevant incorrect sum can be formed into a triangle. III) The only way to prove that there is always a solution to A^2+B^2=C^2 is via geometry. and the only way to find that there are integer solutions is by some means of “trial and error”. I discount scale drawing because of the impossibility of physically measuring irrational line lengths. IV) If given 2 line lengths (say 8 and 9 ) it is not possible to draw a triangle with the third side equal to (8^3+9^3)^1/3 unless you can obtain the required length of the third side by means other than geometry or can determine the angle that joins the two given sides by means other than geometry.. V) Any given triangle can be converted into a parallelogram of forces. For example a triangle of sides 6, 8 and 9 gives rise to a parallelogram of forces showing that a force of 6 units and a force of 8 units acting on a body when separated by an angle of approximately 101.5 degrees are indistinguishable from a single force of 9 units acting at an angle of approximately 61 degrees from the “6” vector and 41 degrees from the “8” vector. VI) If an alternating current or voltage is considered to be providing a force then the value that must be used in any calculation is the rms value (root mean square). VII) Any shape of regularly occurring waveform has an rms value. Different waveforms have different rms values. It is not possible to determine the rms value of a waveform unless you can determine its shape. VIII) If you have two similar shaped waveforms of the same frequency (same periodic time) and introduce phase shift between them you can add them together to form a single composite waveform. The only composite waveform that has the same shape as its two original waveforms is a sine wave. IX) A consequence of VIII above is that for sinewave addition the ratio of peak value and rms value is the same for all sinewave waveforms; the two original waveforms and the composite waveform. However in all other cases the ratio of peak value and rms value is different for the composite waveform than the ratio for the two original waveforms. X) Thus for any condition other than pure sine waves the triangle representing rms value and the triangle representing peak value will be completely different. XI) In order to maintain compatibility between triangles used to form parallelograms of forces ,phasor diagrams using rms values and phasor diagrams using peak values (all of which are valid and commonly used) all straight lines forming triangles must be directly related to phasor diagrams of sine wave shape.

Come on Paul - admit it is a load of spherical objects lol